The Earth Should Be Cooling. My Question to ATS: Why Isn't It?

a reply to: superman2012

Is there something wrong with finding a good link your first try? You have some odd hang-ups.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

We don't know for sure but they believe that the oceans absorb a lot of the CO2.

Indeed they do. And they change their pH levels in the process. Acidic oceans are probably not a good thing.

My original point still stands. There is not enough information to declare "what the Earth should be doing".

As does my point; stick our collective head in the sand and ignore it. Maybe it will go away. Very human of you. Seems to work for ostriches.

No, acidic oceans are not a thing to be desired. Good thing they started keeping track of ocean pH levels 30 years ago! It will be a good base line.
I don't recall saying to ignore the problem. All I was alluding to, was to not run away full sprint when someone yells, "Monster". Do what you wish though....free country and all that.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: superman2012

Is there something wrong with finding a good link your first try? You have some odd hang-ups.

Your link wasn't what I asked for, I don't believe that qualifies as an "odd hang-up", but, like I said, nice try. It happens.

Edit: I gave you a star too!

a reply to: superman2012

It is what you asked for. Not my fault that you feel that it's not.

a reply to: superman2012

It will be a good base line.

Yes. And since the oceans are very massive, it takes a big deal to change their chemical composition. And guess what's been happening since we've been watching?

I don't recall saying to ignore the problem. All I was alluding to, was to not run away full sprint when someone yells, "Monster".

What "full sprint" are you referring to, exactly? You said:

Well obviously that points to the weather acting more weird than ever in recorded history. If that was the claim, I might be willing to agree.

Sounds like you aren't aware of the difference between climate and weather and the different impacts of both.

a reply to: Kali74

maybe because it hasn't got hot enough yet.

i seem to remember that there was talk that as the glaziers melted that the fresh water would slow and eventually stop the gulf stream and then we would experience cooler temps leading to a new ice age.

if that's the case, apparently it's not hot enough to melt them enough to cause the temperature to fall or could it be that's what we see in the north eastern U.S, but that doesn't explain the north west U.S. with the cold winters into spring months.

something to think about.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: superman2012

There is plenty of data available.

Okay, I'll play with your claim.

Can you please link to me April 1726? Australia, China, Mexico, Canada and France? An approximation of location (middle of country) will do.

Thanks!

What does the temperature in Mexico in 1726 have to do with whether we are supposed to be cooling?

This argument is strictly about physics and cause and effect. We are supposed to be cooling because orbital forcing has already peaked and is now reverting back to long-term glaciation. We are supposed to be cooling because the sunspot cycle is currently in a negative trend. We’re even putting a bunch of man made aerosols into the atmosphere, which are supposed to lead to cooling because they reflect sunlight.

It’s physics.

If you put a bunch of ice cubes in your scotch, do you question whether your drink is going to get colder because you don’t know what temperature it was sitting in your liquor cabinet 20 minutes ago?

This is the sort of boneheaded anti-science argument you are trying to make right now.

a reply to: mc_squared

That's what I was looking for from the other side... start there and then try to explain why it isn't so. Apparently it was too much to ask.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

It will be a good base line.

Yes. And since the oceans are very massive, it takes a big deal to change their chemical composition. And guess what's been happening since we've been watching?

I don't recall saying to ignore the problem. All I was alluding to, was to not run away full sprint when someone yells, "Monster".

What "full sprint" are you referring to, exactly? You said:

Well obviously that points to the weather acting more weird than ever in recorded history. If that was the claim, I might be willing to agree.

Sounds like you aren't aware of the difference between climate and weather and the different impacts of both.

What was happening before we were watching? Sure they have a good guess, but they don't know for sure and as a result cannot say with 100% certainty it is the cause. That was my (I thought easy to understand) point.

a reply to: Kali74

Your mistake was going off-script: we know these folks like to stick to the screed of right wing think tank anti-science horsepoops. "Thinking for yourself" is pretty hard when you're suddenly forced into it unable to google up a decent prefabbed comeback

a reply to: superman2012

Sure they have a good guess, but they don't know for sure and as a result cannot say with 100% certainty it is the cause.

Do you know with 100% certainty that your car will start tomorrow? Do you know with 100% certainty that you will not be killed on your way to work? Do you think that the world runs on 100% certainties with anything?

What world do you live on?

a reply to: Phage

In the case of our current climate, that mechanism is radiative forcing.

Aren't there other players causing radiative forcing besides co2? I've read that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than
co2 and we're adding a fair amount of water by burning fossil fuels. Doesn't that water we 'create' remain in the cycle?

I've wondered if contrails might actually persist and spread more now than before due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. IIRC, NASA has said that contrails could account for all of the warming since 1980, or something close to that.

BTW, good to see you posting again.

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: superman2012

There is plenty of data available.

Okay, I'll play with your claim.

Can you please link to me April 1726? Australia, China, Mexico, Canada and France? An approximation of location (middle of country) will do.

Thanks!

What does the temperature in Mexico in 1726 have to do with whether we are supposed to be cooling?

This argument is strictly about physics and cause and effect. We are supposed to be cooling because orbital forcing has already peaked and is now reverting back to long-term glaciation. We are supposed to be cooling because the sunspot cycle is currently in a negative trend. We’re even putting a bunch of man made aerosols into the atmosphere, which are supposed to lead to cooling because they reflect sunlight.

It’s physics.

If you put a bunch of ice cubes in your scotch, do you question whether your drink is going to get colder because you don’t know what temperature it was sitting in your liquor cabinet 20 minutes ago?

This is the sort of boneheaded anti-science argument you are trying to make right now.

I asked for clarification in my first post. I got this in response. Kali said that most people know what theory he/she subscribes too, I am not one. I wanted clarification and got a link instead.

I was making a (what I thought was very easy to understand) point that there is not enough information available to blame an event on one cause, by asking for (and reminding that it doesn't exist) information regarding temperature recordings throughout time.

There is too little data, too little understanding to say that one thing definitively causes another. Unfortunately it isn't as simple as your bone headed question of adding ice cubes to scotch = temperature fluctuation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

Sure they have a good guess, but they don't know for sure and as a result cannot say with 100% certainty it is the cause.

Do you know with 100% certainty that your car will start tomorrow? Do you know with 100% certainty that you will not be killed on your way to work? Do you think that the world runs on 100% certainties with anything?

What world do you live on?

Of course no one can predict the future...why would you even ask that? I only know that I live now, that my car started, and that I wasn't killed today...that I know for certainty. Not the world where Phage wants an answer to future events. That isn't what we were talking about. We were talking cause and effect. Not future crime.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Aren't there other players causing radiative forcing besides co2? I've read that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than co2 and we're adding a fair amount of water by burning fossil fuels. Doesn't that water we 'create' remain in the cycle?

Water vapor only remains in the cycle if temperatures allow it (I think you know that). If it's warmer, the atmosphere can contain more water vapor. If it's cooler the atmosphere can contain less water vapor. That's a major factor in the problem. Rising CO2 levels lead to increased forcing which leads to increased temperatures which leads to increased ambient water vapor which leads to more warming.

CO2, on the other hand is not temperature dependent, it remains no matter what the temperature is unless there is a "sink". Oceans are indeed a sink for CO2 and CO2 levels in the oceans have been rising, along with atmospheric levels.

IIRC, NASA has said that contrails could account for all of the warming since 1980, or something close to that.

I don't recall such a statement.

a reply to: superman2012

I guess I misunderstood when you said this:

Sure they have a good guess, but they don't know for sure and as a result cannot say with 100% certainty it is the cause.

I guess you don't plan for the future in your life. Just for the moment. Good strategy.

originally posted by: superman2012
There is too little data, too little understanding to say that one thing definitively causes another. Unfortunately it isn't as simple as your bone headed question of adding ice cubes to scotch = temperature fluctuation.

No, because as far as man made global warming is concerned - it is that simple and we do have the data. We have verified experimental proof of the physics. Heck even the Mythbusters have done it:



We also have real world satellite and ground based observations of this effect happening outside of the lab and in the real world:






What's boneheaded is making ignorant pronouncements about how we apparently "don't have the data" when you clearly don't have the facts.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012

I guess I misunderstood when you said this:

Sure they have a good guess, but they don't know for sure and as a result cannot say with 100% certainty it is the cause.

I guess you don't plan for the future in your life. Just for the moment. Good strategy.

I was very clear in my posts. Take the time to read them before reacting next time. Yes I plan for the future, but it isn't a certainty, as you decided to point out for some reason.

a reply to: superman2012
But you seem to think that acknowledging that global temperatures "may" be rising is problematic. Why? Why is planning for that so abhorrent? How does saying "it's not 100% certain" accomplish anything at all?

a reply to: mc_squared

Okay. Let's see the data. Show me that last two hundred thousand years and we'll compare it to now. Am I saying man isn't screwing up this planet? No. I'm saying that correlation does not equal causation. Until they definitively prove one way or the other, I'm going to keep my mind open to all possibilities. I don't like to...what was it again...stick my head in the sand, regarding either argument....