Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are throwing out my argument when you make temperature a constant. My claim is based on the fact that the global warming is real. To make temperature constant is to deny global warming.

Who's the denier?

What do partial differential mean? Seriously look it up. You obviously do not have the basis to comment on what they did. After you figure out what a partial differential is then go to their differentials, partial fractions and algebra and point out specifically where the error was in factoring out solubility in their equations. They said it was a function of temperature AND ph.

The better question is why are you talking about solubility states without considering ph.

Further as I knew you would, you are fixating on the 1958 paper. I showed you the 2003 MIT paper for modeling and they very clearly consider temperature in their transfer coefficient. I linked and quoted it for you.

What is clear is you are being a sophist piece of . You claim that it does not disagree with anything you say but it could not disagree more. they consider it and factor it very clearly. You are just too ignorant and dumb to understand.

[Wild Cobra]

You do understand that the oceans are really, really big, right? What does this imply for thermal inertia in the short term?

Absolutely.

The estimates vary for how long it takes to exchange the volume between deep and surface.

Please note that I have focused on two primary locations. The Tropical Pacific as a source, and the North Atlantic as a sink. This is because these are the largest two areas in deep water to surface water movement, and surface to deep. Is it coincidence that the studies show these two regions to also have the greatest flux, one as a source and one as a sink? I think not.

The waters from the tropical Pacific have a different mix of CO2/H2CO3 than the waters that have been on the surface. That is why they source so much compared to the longer sitting waters. Same idea with the North Atlantic waters. Their added percentage of CO2/H2CO3 disappears for hundreds of years, where in other places, it stays in the near surface, in exchange with the atmosphere by indirect means, or comes to the surface again. There is less of a delta C (carbon) to have any additional changes.

The size of the ocean isn't as important as the exchange between sinks and sources. In some past arguments a year or more back, I had this part wrong. The flux and change of flux is dictated by the areas of transfer and the variables that change the transfer rate and direction.

Surface temperature is an undisputed primary variable to this process.

Please show me a study that explicitly says temperature does not matter in the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Surface temperature is an undisputed primary variable to this process.

Please show me a study that explicitly says temperature does not matter in the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean.

primary
undisputed

WC has it figured out and MIT has it all wrong.

You are the one making these claims. How about you back it up with more than oversimplified napkin math and 'I suppose.'

[MannyIsGod]

[MannyIsGod]

The Arctic hit a record low for ice extent on today's date. Still incredibly early in the melt season but its already looking bad.

[MannyIsGod]

I believe there were posts here earlier this season talking about how extent was average. I told you that extent is pretty meaningless when the volume is lower because it still melts faster. There you see it.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe there were posts here earlier this season talking about how extent was average. I told you that extent is pretty meaningless when the volume is lower because it still melts faster. There you see it.

If you look back to around day 110, you see it is average. It breaks away from average just over a month ago.

How many days back was that post? Was it just over 30 days ago?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you guys keep thinking temperature doesn't matter for the solubility of CO2 into sea water? I point out this material supports what I say, and you guys completely ignore it. Since you fail to have reading comprehension, here are a few excerpts from Scientic Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidication on Marine Biodiversity, one of the links Fuzzball gave:

The solubility and distribution of CO2 in the oceans depends on climatic conditions and a number of physical (e.g. water column mixing, temperature), chemical (e.g. carbonate chemistry) and biological (e.g. biological productivity) factors.

Solubility Pump: In addition to the absorption or release of CO2 due to biological processes, changes in the solubility of gaseous CO2 can alter CO2 concentrations in the oceans and the overlying atmosphere. The solubility pump reflects the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 (i.e. solubility is greater in colder water) and the thermal stratification of the ocean.

The solubility pump has been estimated to contribute about 20% to the vertical distribution/gradient of DIC; the remaining 80% originates from the biological pump(s). It should be noted that increasing sea-surface temperatures as a result of climate change will decrease the solubility of CO2. Different climate models predict ocean temperature increases throughout this century, which means that less CO2 will be absorbed at the surface. Model outcomes suggest that the strength of the solubility pump is highly correlated with mean surface and deep-ocean temperatures. In the long term, the solubility of CO2 may decrease, or in the worst-case, even interrupt, the ocean’s solubility pump.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I pointed out the 1958 paper. If it weren't for that you would still be requoting your 1000 units and a solubility chart. I have been trying to move this conversation forward but quite frankly you are stuck on primary school.

I do think its funny that you are citing NOAA. I thought they were just another evil governmental en y when we should be listening to Exxon advocacy groups.

CO2 doesn't just dissolve it dissociates into 3 chemical states and well defined ratios. The 1958 paper was breaking down the process by which this occurs. They used the same mathematical approach that you see in thermodynamic heat models. In the paper you can see where they set up the ratios and its righteous even if someone like you has nil chance of understanding the math.

Its chemical engineering and in so doing they determined that the concentrations of the individual substrates is the primary attribute governing the reaction. They backed it up.

That was 54 years ago and the only thing you fixate on. That MIT paper I showed you was to point out that they have moved far, far past that. They consider temperature, they consider it in terms of the manner in which the ocean mixes between its layers. Those were only two studies that I looked up there are many, many more.

Now if you want you can continue to rail against modern engineering and science much like creationists wanting to believe that there was combustion in the thermosphere for a month causing the flood in Genesis go ahead but one thing is obvious, you are too simpleminded to understand what the climate scientists are getting at.

Further, you always 'suppose' what you want to be true is actually true. Really, thinking about it my goal should be to writing for people that either have the mental a en to follow or do not simply insert supposition for fact.

Go ahead and continue considering CO2 dissolution in terms of only temperature, simpleton.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope the irony of this is not lost.

Here’s a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: “These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. …” It goes on, but there’s the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.

Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-rise-illegal/

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy gets it wrong again with his assumptions.

He finds it funny that I cite NOAA, yet what I did was cite the paper he linked to disprove what I was saying. I repeatedly said over and over, the material he was linking did not disagree with me.

I find it funny that he doesn't understand.

He thinks that onld paper was some miracle? OK, he can have that warm fuzzy feeling, but it didn't say anything dismissive of my argument, and I was already speaking of the basics it has written in it.

He speaks of the combustion in the thermosphere as if it's something I believe, when I started with a smart ass statement to the effect "maybe the biblical flood has merit." Sio ing what. I never said it happened, and only posed a possibility, when solar and atmospheric conditions may have been different. Even as unlikely as I knew it was, being more true to science, I never ruled out the slim possibility, just because I didn't like it. In fact, I don't like it. I don't think it happened that way. I think coming out of the ice age, floods breached the straits of Gibralter when the sea level rose. Now I know Fuzzy will latch on this with his ankle biter mentality, but it will just prove once again how much of a ing ass he is.

He claims I think of solubility in only temperature? That's a flat out fabricated lie. I have said otherwise, but have maintained that temperature is the primary factor for the ratio between the atmosphere and water. salinity plays a factor, so does acidity a bit, but pH changes so little. There are other factors as well, and I think he is confusing at what rate the changes will occur with at what level they will occur at. The wind is a primary factor for changing the speed at which all this happens. Still, over the long term, the wind has an average. Over the long term, since the 1700's the sun has increased average intensity twice. There is little or no disagreement in the scientific community that these solar increases have warmed the ocean. There is also little or no disagreement in the scientific community that the temperature of the oceans do follow known solubility vs. temperature responses.

He also incorrectly claims I do not consider the states at which CO2 disassociates. Here, he is clearly lying again. I have only mentioned CO2 and H2CO3 because there can be rapid changes between these forms as needed. The other two primary forms are a slower process, and do not dictate carbonic acid levels which is the primary form CO2 becomes in the surface of the oceans. Between carbon dioxide and carbonic acid, this is about 90% of the absorbed CO2. I simply don't focus on the remaining 10%.

Not ice he maintains I don't have the intelligence for this topic, but that's all he says. He links papers that are laughably wrong regarding the discussion, and never tries to put all this in layman's terms for you all to understand.

Fuzzy is a ing idiot. He keeps exposing his ass on this issue. I'm surprised others aren't saying anything about it.

He says he wants to move this discussion forward. Another lie. If he did, he would try to debate me on the level I claim rather than saying my claim is invalid.

Nobody with any good basic science understanding will disagree with my claim that the temperature of the sea water affects CO2 absorption. It affects it pretty good as well.



Solubility charts for CO2 already factor in pH changes, because carbonic acid is a primary form during the process.

[Wild Cobra]

I believe there were posts here earlier this season talking about how extent was average. I told you that extent is pretty meaningless when the volume is lower because it still melts faster. There you see it.

I just realized.

I kept a sample when it was posted before:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

[Wild Cobra]

Talk to the hand. You think you're smart, but everyone sees through you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

[MannyIsGod]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey WD,

So what have you come up with partial differentials? When dealing with multiple variables, what is important about the variables that you hold as constants in respect to those differentiated when doing said differentiation?

Do you still believe that contemporary scientists do not consider temperature in their models as you have claimed? If so, how does that not contradict the peer reviewed studies such as the ones from NOAA, MIT, and even the author of the data from your solubility chart where it is clearly mentioned and factored into the calculations? I do think its funny that you use a chart and not Weiss' formula.

And if you claim that they do not disagree with what you are saying as I know your simple mind will once again parrot I repeat myself:

Do you still believe that contemporary scientists do not consider temperature in their models as you have claimed?

That is the core of your contention for skepticism that they do not consider the effect of T on K. Do you still claim that those studies do not consider the effect of T on K?

Oh and thermosphere combustion floods

[Yonivore]

Once again, I come across and article that tends to show the AGCC Emperor has no clothes and, once again, I'll post it as chum over which the SpursTalk AGCC congregants can swarm...

IS THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY GETTING WARMER?

After reading the blog post (and links), if you choose, I just have two simple questions for those who bow at the alter of the AGCC God:

1) Is this statement true, "Historically, five adjustments have been made [to the raw NOAA data that is the basis for graphing long-term temperature trends]; the only one that tended to reduce temperatures apparently has been eliminated?"

2) Is this statement true, "Not only does NOAA not correct for the well-recognized urban heat island effect, as I think it obviously should, it goes out of its way to re-introduce the heat island effect where better data are available!?"

In other words, are AGCC proponents fudging the data to meet their expectations or is this guy all wet? Please explain the flaw in his data and analysis.

Thank you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow, yoni those are original arguments from that blog.

Lets prey on peoples ignorance on how science normalizes data by calling it data adjustments. Seriously look up normalize and get back to us.

While we're at it let's just ignore several studies that have quantified and rejected the heat island argument.

[MannyIsGod]

So we're back to disputing whether or not the US and the world are getting warmer?



WOW. Why would they correct for the urban heat island affect? That makes no ing sense. That IS the temperature is those places.

@ complaining about supposedly fudging numbers and then saying that the numbers should be fudged in the direction he wants. That is gold.

Did BEST find it was not warming and that it was all the urban heat island effect? Let me know. Maybe one of your blogs can fill you in.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, I come across and article that tends to show the AGCC Emperor has no clothes and, once again, I'll post it as chum over which the SpursTalk AGCC congregants can swarm...

IS THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY GETTING WARMER?

After reading the blog post (and links), if you choose, I just have two simple questions for those who bow at the alter of the AGCC God:

1) Is this statement true, "Historically, five adjustments have been made [to the raw NOAA data that is the basis for graphing long-term temperature trends]; the only one that tended to reduce temperatures apparently has been eliminated?"

2) Is this statement true, "Not only does NOAA not correct for the well-recognized urban heat island effect, as I think it obviously should, it goes out of its way to re-introduce the heat island effect where better data are available!?"

In other words, are AGCC proponents fudging the data to meet their expectations or is this guy all wet? Please explain the flaw in his data and analysis.

Thank you.

Oh come on now. This old ? Everyone knows this is happening, at least those who seek the truth. It's nothing new. they even correct satellite data to their liking. They can't get up there and actually check the calibration of the sensors as they degrade from cosmic radiation, etc. so they make their best guess to readjust the data to fit the model they want.

What I don't understand is how any true scientist can be convinced by the data.

The public that gets spoon fed their so called facts is slowly learning this, that's why AGW is dying. The truth is coming out.

[Wild Cobra]

So we're back to disputing whether or not the US and the world are getting warmer?



WOW. Why would they correct for the urban heat island affect? That makes no ing sense. That IS the temperature is those places.

@ complaining about supposedly fudging numbers and then saying that the numbers should be fudged in the direction he wants. That is gold.

Did BEST find it was not warming and that it was all the urban heat island effect? Let me know. Maybe one of your blogs can fill you in.

No, we are back to what the levels actually are, and from what timeframes are actually warmer and what are not.

Seriously. None of these temperature sensors in urban settings can be relied on. No matter how good we think we are at adjusting for the changes around them, a localized heat island cannot be used to accurately determine squat.

I am one who believes the global average has remained stable, or slightly dropping over the last decade. I most certainly see a serious drop where I live, and i believe on average, for every square mile of cooler temperatures, there is approximately the same area of warmer temperatures. Climate change is real, with or without mankind's help.

I have lived in the same place since 1994. My place gets warmer only because three old fir trees that use to provide me shade in the summer were cut down. Other than that, the last several years have been cooler.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey WD,

So what have you come up with partial differentials? When dealing with multiple variables, what is important about the variables that you hold as constants in respect to those differentiated when doing said differentiation?

Do you still believe that contemporary scientists do not consider temperature in their models as you have claimed? If so, how does that not contradict the peer reviewed studies such as the ones from NOAA, MIT, and even the author of the data from your solubility chart where it is clearly mentioned and factored into the calculations? I do think its funny that you use a chart and not Weiss' formula.

And if you claim that they do not disagree with what you are saying as I know your simple mind will once again parrot I repeat myself:

Do you still believe that contemporary scientists do not consider temperature in their models as you have claimed?

That is the core of your contention for skepticism that they do not consider the effect of T on K. Do you still claim that those studies do not consider the effect of T on K?

Oh and thermosphere combustion floods

You, WildDumbass, you ever going to respond to this or can we just assume that you are going to ignore it so that you can repeat you same drivel again here in a few more weeks?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, we are back to what the levels actually are, and from what timeframes are actually warmer and what are not.

Seriously. None of these temperature sensors in urban settings can be relied on. No matter how good we think we are at adjusting for the changes around them, a localized heat island cannot be used to accurately determine squat.

I am one who believes the global average has remained stable, or slightly dropping over the last decade. I most certainly see a serious drop where I live, and i believe on average, for every square mile of cooler temperatures, there is approximately the same area of warmer temperatures. Climate change is real, with or without mankind's help.

I have lived in the same place since 1994. My place gets warmer only because three old fir trees that use to provide me shade in the summer were cut down. Other than that, the last several years have been cooler.

I hope you realize that by saying this you are arguing that the UAH professors methodology in unifying atmospheric temperatures doesn't mean squat too.

We have already determined that you such at statistics but to further that point, look up normalization. Just because you do not understand these things does not mean that scientists cannot figure out 'squat.' Similar methodology is behind pretty much every engineering success of the past 100 years. The proof is in the pudding, not in what you suppose is possible.

[Wild Cobra]

You, WildDumbass, you ever going to respond to this or can we just assume that you are going to ignore it so that you can repeat you same drivel again here in a few more weeks?

LOL...

How am i suppose to knew "WD" is your pet initials for your pet name of me?

Am I suppose to be psychic?

No...

I'm, not wasting my time to go back and look at a stuipd question from your silly dumb ass.

Talk to the hand...