• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Pause Is Back, and a New Paper Suggests Why

LowDown said:
You would think that warming of water in the tropics would increase evaporation, therefore humidity, therefore cloud formation, therefore reduced heating and increased cloud convection. So the cycle might be heating, cloud formation, cooling/precipitation, rinse and repeat. But in order to see this with satellite data then a time lag must be included. Roy Spencer did this and showed an overall negative feedback from the water cycle in the tropics, but it has not caught on with the warmists for some odd reason.
Click to expand...
Well, the evaporation process effectively becomes a storage for latent heat. The heat then moves to some other part of the earth. If more water is evaporated, the could coverage will be greater., depending on the altitude of these clouds depends on if the effect creates a mostly positive or mostly negative feedback, at least how the literature reads.

I will contend that any cloud coverage over the oceans has a net negative feedback, because of the way the ocean absorbs radiant heat vs. solid surface areas.
 
Steve Case said:
Pointing out that CO2 concentration has been MUCH higher in the past when the topic is
...the increased acidity of the water has depleted certain shellfish to
non-sustainable levels. The acidity is caused by CO2 dissolving in the ocean.​
isn't out of context.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's five legged dog.
Old Abe is quoted as having said:



Saying something is out of context when it's not is bullsh!t.
Click to expand...

Guy who knows squat about shellfish tells experts they are wrong about shellfish because of strawman argument.

Film at 11.
 
Steve Case said:
Saying something is out of context when it's not is bullsh!t.
Click to expand...

In my experience, he doesn't know what context means.

Maybe I'll post a definition for him:



Definition of context

1
: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

2
: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting <the historical context of the war>
​

Context | Context Definition by Merriam-Webster
 
Jack Hays said:
Are you having trouble understanding the data?
Click to expand...

First, we should hope 3G would just understand the words. Witness, with my bold:

It will affect phytoplankton.

Ocean acidification may cause dramatic changes to phytoplankton | MIT News
Click to expand...

This is the stuff upon which rabid AGW supporters build their house.
 
humbolt said:
First, we should hope 3G would just understand the words. Witness, with my bold:



This is the stuff upon which rabid AGW supporters build their house.
Click to expand...

That's one reason why I have to repeat so many times that "words have meaning." These faithful to the dogma think it's their religious imperative, to interpret science to what they believe.

So many science papers say things like "may cause..." etc. Then the pundits change that in saying it "does cause."

So many lies in punditry about the science, and it is generally nothing more than changing a word here and there. Their ignorant audience doesn't know any better, and like Goofs, think they know it all from reading blogs and other punditry.
 
Last edited:
I am not seeing a pause here:

graph.png


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...imates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png

I am not seeing a pause here either:

HadCRUT4.png


https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Moreover, 2016 is already set to be the warmest year on record, so where is this pause?

Deniers are pretty predictable. They will take the warmest year on record, typically an El Nino year, then compare it to a couple of subsequent years that are not quite as warm, yet still much warmer than the 20th century average. They will then argue that "global warming has paused". Then when we have another El Nino year that is the warmest year on record, they will blame that warmth on the fact that it was an El Nino year, then they will take the next few subsequent years that are warm, but not as warm as the El Nino year, and argue that "Global Warming has paused". And so on and so forth, rinse and repeat. At this point there are creationists with more intellectual honesty than the average AGW denier.
 
Last edited:
I see you didn't read the article.

It specifically says satellite data over land. It isn't speaking of global changes.
 
Threegoofs said:
Thats because you're looking at the data honestly.

Not so with the denier crowd here.
Click to expand...

If you accept that at a warming climate globally will graph out like a set of stairs rather than a straight line where each and every year is warmer than the last, then it all makes a little more sense.
 
jmotivator said:
In wait patiently for you to broach this point in one of the million alarmist threads on the arctic ice sheet.
Click to expand...

Um, the equator isn't covered in ice.
 
Grand Mal said:
This paper?

From your link...

"From OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

CORVALLIS, Ore. – The ocean chemistry along the West Coast of North America is changing rapidly because of global carbon dioxide emissions, and the governments of Oregon, California, Washington and British Columbia can take actions now to offset and mitigate the effects of these changes.

That is the conclusion of a 20-member panel of leading West Coast ocean scientists, who presented a comprehensive report on Monday outlining a series of recommendations to address the increase in ocean acidification and hypoxia, or extremely low oxygen levels."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04...sts-sound-alarm-for-changing-ocean-chemistry/
Click to expand...

This one.

Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research

[h=1]Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research[/h][FONT=&quot]
+Author Affiliations
  • Institute of Marine Research, Marine Ecosystem Acoustics Disciplinary Group, Austevoll Research Station, 5392 Storebø, Norway


  • Received January 18, 2016.
  • Accepted January 19, 2016.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Next Section
[h=2]Abstract[/h]“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish. Further, the mechanisms underlying the biological and ecological effects of OA have received little attention in most organismal groups, and some of the key mechanisms (e.g. calcification) are still incompletely understood. For these reasons, the ICES Journal of Marine Science solicited contributions to this special issue. In this introduction, I present a brief overview of the history of research on OA, call for a heightened level of organized (academic) scepticism to be applied to the body of work on OA, and briefly present the 44 contributions that appear in this theme issue. OA research has clearly matured, and is continuing to do so. We hope that our readership will find that, when taken together, the articles that appear herein do indeed move us “Towards a broader perspective on ocean acidification research”.[/FONT]
 
Quaestio said:
Your amateur opinions are not science.
Click to expand...

I am no amateur, and you are definitely too naive to see the truth in my knowledge.

You shouldn't be here since you can't relate to the science even a little.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I am no amateur, and you are definitely too naive to see the truth in my knowledge.

You shouldn't be here since you can't relate to the science even a little.
Click to expand...

Hmm. So you're a professional?

I thought you said you were an auto-didact?

Or do you just lie in every OTHER post?

But I guess pretending there is no scientific consensus, even though you've been shown all the professional societies (wonder which one YOU belong to, Mr non-amateur?) are telling us that there is a consensus makes you somehow not dishonest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmm. So you're a professional?

I thought you said you were an auto-didact?

Or do you just lie in every OTHER post?

But I guess pretending there is no scientific consensus, even though you've been shown all the professional societies (wonder which one YOU belong to, Mr non-amateur?) are telling us that there is a consensus makes you somehow not dishonest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Click to expand...

LOL...

You still fail to comprehend that words have meaning.
 
Quaestio said:
Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids?
Click to expand...

You two with your ignorance are a riot!

I am not a professional of the field, because I am not paid for it. That does not keep me from being an expert.

Words have meaning.

I isn't auto-didact. It's autodidact. A didactic person is different yet, and to do so automatically? LOL... LOL...

Until you guys understand that words have meaning, especially in science, you two are a complete joke when debating a topic of science!
 
Lord of Planar said:
You two with your ignorance are a riot!

I am not a professional of the field, because I am not paid for it. That does not keep me from being an expert.

Words have meaning.

I isn't auto-didact. It's autodidact. A didactic person is different yet, and to do so automatically? LOL... LOL...

Until you guys understand that words have meaning, especially in science, you two are a complete joke when debating a topic of science!
Click to expand...

Autodidact:

WLz5cB.jpg


Auto-Didact:

uF7RXF.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
You two with your ignorance are a riot!

I am not a professional of the field, because I am not paid for it. That does not keep me from being an expert.

Words have meaning.

I isn't auto-didact. It's autodidact. A didactic person is different yet, and to do so automatically? LOL... LOL...

Until you guys understand that words have meaning, especially in science, you two are a complete joke when debating a topic of science!
Click to expand...

Words have meaning. The word 'expert' has meaning. You're no expert. In any field of science. It's a self-deluded fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
You two with your ignorance are a riot!

I am not a professional of the field, because I am not paid for it. That does not keep me from being an expert.

Words have meaning.

I isn't auto-didact. It's autodidact. A didactic person is different yet, and to do so automatically? LOL... LOL...

Until you guys understand that words have meaning, especially in science, you two are a complete joke when debating a topic of science!
Click to expand...

Apparently, there's only one real scientist here, who is a self taught expert and has never done any work in the field, or even apparently directly talked to anyone who has ever done any work in the field. In fact, he's never actually given any of his qualifications, because from what we've gleaned from his years of posting, they're probably pretty embarrassing.

But he subscribes to a journal (or maybe six, or 50 - he doesn't know the number) so he knows more than the guys from the National Academy of Sciences, who he's never even heard of anyway.

Total clownage. Everyday, I live in fascination of how much self delusion the human mind is capable of.
 
Quaestio said:
Words have meaning. The word 'expert' has meaning. You're no expert. In any field of science. It's a self-deluded fantasy.
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sea Surface Temperature
[h=1]The “blob” in the Pacific turns from warm to cold – and it’s even bigger[/h]Thanks to Bob Tisdale, we’ve covered the evolution, peak, and demise of the sea surface temperature phenomenon labeled as “The Blob” in the North Pacific for awhile now. According to Wikipedia: The Blob is the name given to a large mass of relatively warm water in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of North America.…
Click to expand...
We are having a mild November in my area, and I was expecting it to snap cold later this year before reading the link.

Not really worried about it. I have seen the cycles of this area, and what we see isn't unusual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom