Deer in the Headlights

[LP]

Ocean acidification (not acidity) - the ocean is basic (alkaline) - always has been and will always be alkaline (even under the impossible RCP 8.5). Acidification is a fear mongering term - a misnomer. They've measured a drop of 0.1 to date (how they measure that on a global scale is moot given day to day and episodal movements in any one location can dwarf that drop).

We should probably applaud the ocean, it's doing it's best to absorb as much CO2 as possible, if the situation changes things would be very dire!

That 0.1 is a nice way to trivialize the process required to make that level of change, billions or trillions of tonnes of CO2 absorbed or emitted. It is a foible of human perception to judge these events as a percentage change on a global atmospheric scale. Our entire existence occurs inside a thin film volume bounded by less than 1% of the atmosphere and oceans. We could trivialize changes using averages that are accounted for over the full volumes, but that might bear no resemblance to what happens in our thin atmospheric surface film of existence!

Offering the 0.1 average as an argument for minimal human induced change is making the same trivial mistake as the average weather report wind-speed example I discussed earlier, the serious climate effects are experienced in the peaks and troughs. You even indirectly debunk your own point in the sentence highlight, you are not being logically consistent, I think the problem is referred to as self-referential inconsistency!

[LP]

UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.

Do you know what a GSM is, the time span it occurs over, and it's global effects?

[LP]

Ocean acidification (not acidity)
.
.
.
Clearly your back ground includes little or no knowledge of the geologic timescale - I suggest you brush up on that 

If you wish to get persnickety, that would be background wouldn't it?

Can you sell me a brush? ;D

Unlike some skeptical commentators I know enough about deep time not to confuse CO2 or global temperatures from the Hadean or Achean(FFS, lunatics quoting relative Hadean temperatures as proof the earth isn't warning!) with the post-Proterozoic Cenozoic or as it may now become cynically known the Pyrozoic! And probably I know just enough not to equate effects that happen over tens or hundreds of years like recent CO2 rise and a Grand Solar Minimum(GSM), with geologic processes that occur over thousands or millions of years like an ice age! :

[LP]

UAH's most recent satellite data? 0.55C rise in temperature in 41 years. And even NASA admits we're on the cusp of a big GSM.
[quote author=LP date=1579234089 link=msg=299010]
Do you know what a GSM is, the time span it occurs over, and it's global effects?

[/quote]
Come on don't leave me hanging, the anticipation is killing me, I yearn to learn!

[Baggers]

Sorry Chalky but you’re way off the mark there. We’ve never experienced anything like the intensity, extent and duration of the current bushfires ... and we’re still not in the peak bushfire season.

Sorry, Chalky Old Son, but DJC is spot on. And those on the ground, facing these fires, who've faced and studied firefighting for decades, say the same thing.

[flyboy77]

Seriously LP. you're projecting.

Look that up.

I used the issue of ocean alkalinity as it is but one example of the laughable scare mongering rolled out by alarmists. And your commentary suggests you don't even get a log scale....no wonder your comments were facile and rhetorical.

No doubt you missed this during the week. eight studies out of JCU could not be replicated. Hmmmm.

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-double-che...mpair.html

When scientists fudge/adjust/manipulate data there's an agenda. And in the climate change field, there's been mountains of dodgy stuff going on - Mann, Marcott, Climategate, the JCU stuff....

I gave you the opportunity to hone in a particular topic and get to the nitty-gritty - you chose the ad hominem attack.

Says it all really.

[LP]

Seriously LP. you're projecting.

Look that up.

I used the issue of ocean alkalinity as it is but one example of the laughable scare mongering rolled out by alarmists. And your commentary suggests you don't even get a log scale....no wonder your comments were facile and rhetorical.

No doubt you missed this during the week. eight studies out of JCU could not be replicated. Hmmmm.

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-double-che...mpair.html

When scientists fudge/adjust/manipulate data there's an agenda. And in the climate change field, there's been mountains of dodgy stuff going on - Mann, Marcott, Climategate, the JCU stuff....

I gave you the opportunity to hone in a particular topic and get to the nitty-gritty - you chose the ad hominem attack.

Says it all really.

That and personal attacks would be your modus operandi, I'm not here to assist you in correcting that behaviour. It is a matter for you!

So ignoring the diversion back to the debate, after all a bit of learning and we might be able to send Scotty from Marketing some useful advice for his new clean green persona, Scotty too Hotty!

So I'm still waiting for anything from you on the pending GSM and global warming, even a rough general summary is fine. It's not a bogus fact you picked up somewhere and repeated is it?

[flyboy77]

I guess you forgot to look up the meaning of projection LP?

It was you who suggested I couldn't distinguish between a median and an average.

But of course, that's ok, as you have the moral high ground right?

GSM?

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-...te-change/

(noting NASA of course will down play the implications and keep on with the AGW narrative)

Zharkova's work is good too.

[LP]

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-...te-change/

(noting NASA of course will down play the implications and keep on with the AGW narrative)

NASA doesn't have to downplay anything, because GSM isn't a measure of fluence(the total solar flux over time). GSM(Grand Solar Minimum) is primarily a measure of general solar/sunspot activity, a longer term version of the Suns regular 11 year cycle.

Even Wikipedia gets GSM right, I don't think NASA has anything to worry about being proven wrong by skeptics! ;D

It's uniformed skeptics who attached a significant effect to the GSM in an effort to explain climate change. Confusing and erroneously referencing things like the GSM and Maunder Minimum to "explain" why the Earth was cooler then and hotter now. I gather they erroneously think "Grand Solar Minimum" means something significant in regards to fluence.

[img width=450]https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1897/[/img]

Of course basic analysis of the data shows the total fluence varies by less than 0.1%, about +/- 1W around an average fluence of 1360W/m² (1/1360 x 100 = 0.07%). You know the mysterious yellow scale on the left of the graph above, which I think some crazy people call the Y-Axis, it's a scale apparently!

While Earth's aphelion(furthest from Sun) and perihelion(closest to Sun) position contributes a +/- 3% change in total fluence yearly, you know more scales and logarithms! ;D

Assuming skeptics accept that the Earth does travel around the Sun in a ellipse and that it's not flat.

Of course if Earth is flat then forget everything I said! :o

So is the skeptics failure to accept primary school math deliberate wilful ignorance, pure stupidity, or perhaps Dunning-Kruger at work again?

[flyboy77]

Now you're just making stuff up.

No more from me. Like every other alarmist, totally incapable of having a rational debate/discussion.

ps if you're playing the facile D-K card, projection looks a certainty.