Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Bad analogy. If you want the analogy to be real you it would go something like this. Put water on the stove and turn the element to "medium". Notice that the water remains at the same temperature. It's important to note here that the water you put on the stove is already at the "medium" equilibrium temperature. Now, turn the element to "high" and notice that the water temperature begins to increase. Now, turn the burner back down to "medium". The temperature will begin decreasing again...almost immediately.

The mistake you're making with your wording of the analogy is that you are wanting us to take water that is at a much lower temperature than the equilibrium temperature of the "medium" setting. You have framed the setup in just the right way to get the conclusion you want. But, your setup does not match how the initial state is here on Earth.

 

If you don't believe any of the data then why are we even having this discussion? In other words, if you don't believe the observations there's no common ground that we can use to prove you right or wrong.

 

No, it is a perfect analogy. If you want to know what a bad analogy looks like:

Which it couldn't possibly, because:

Wrong. The earth was not at equilibrium temperature at the beginning of the instrument record period, as it was just coming out of the global Little Ice Age. Your analogy fails again.

Nope. It depends on the external temperature and characteristics of thermal inertia and heat transfer.

Which is correct, because the instrument record begins at the end of the Little Ice Age, when the earth's temperature WAS lower than the equilibrium at "medium." So the mistake YOU are making is assuming, falsely, that the earth was at equilibrium at the end of the Little Ice Age,

It matches it better than yours. You also fail to take account of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

 

If you are going to believe whatever you are told by AGW fraudsters, why are we even having this discussion?

Sure there is: the photographic evidence of polar sea ice, which shows no significant decline during the satellite era.

The observations of temperature aren't the problem. It is how they are systematically altered to show a spurious warming trend that is the problem.

 

The facts.

1958 was the highest EVER RECORDED.

Medium is lower than High. But they both warm Little Ice Age water.

You're still ignoring the long-term average and especially thermal inertia. The record clearly shows that sunspot activity was greater in the previous cycle that peaked in 2002 than in ANY of the FIVE cycles from 1879-1934:

http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot

Of course it has.

After the observations are "smoothed" and "weighted" and "averaged" and "adjusted."

 

The Earth is always in a state of equilibrium. Heat does not spontaneously appear or disappear. The net sum of the changes in the heat reservoirs (air, ocean, and other thermal mass like ice and the top layer of land) must match the net sum of the radiation in minus the radiation out.

I'm well aware of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Research shows that the heat flux between the ocean and air creates an inertial lag of air temperature relative ocean temperature that is a few years at most. And since you brought this up consider that since 2000 both the ocean and the air have warmed considerably. If you are going to use the inertial lag argument that you'd expect the oceans to have cooled as the heat transferred from them into the air, but that's not what was observed. We saw them both go up.

So the question is given the decline in total solar radiation what caused both the oceans and the air to accumulate heat since 2000? Where did that heat come from?

I believe what the abundance of data tells me.

Well, I don't know what to tell you, but polar sea ice especially at the north pole has been declining for years.

No dataset alters the observations to show warming. In fact, most of the datasets don't alter the data at all.

My figures did not come from smoothed, weighted, averaged, or adjusted data. My figures are corroborated by multiple datasets (most of which don't adjust the data all) using wildly different techniques and subsets of available data.

I tell you what. Show me a dataset that has not adjusted any data and which shows that the Earth has not warmed since 1960. And remember, the UAH is THE most manipulated and adjusted dataset of them all. And it just happens to be the one in which most experts call into question it's accuracy. And it STILL shows the Earth is warming.

 

Flat false. It is always gaining or losing heat.

Depends what you mean by, "spontaneously."

That is different from claiming it is in equilibrium. The gravitational and kinetic energy in a pendulum must always sum to a constant as well, but it is not in equilibrium.

Then why do you pretend it does not exist?

No, that is a claim flatly disproved by research. The trendless ~60y temperature cycle is just one proof that the claim is false. The multi-hundred-year lag between temperature and CO2 in the ice-core data is another.

According to systematically falsified data.

No, data was fabricated to show them both going up.

Assuming there actually was an increase in heat, I already explained that to you: decline from an all-time historical high does not mean decline to below the historical average. You just can't understand the difference.

An abundance of falsified data does not alter the facts.

It has declined slightly since the 1940-1970 cyclical cooling period, but has not declined as much as the falsified temperature data would imply.

Baldly false.

All of them do.

Of course they did.

False.

Of course the earth has warmed since 1960. The sun has been unusually active, and human activities have contributed to warming, especially at night. Increased atmospheric CO2 has probably also had a small effect.

 

You wouldn’t be here without CO2.

 

The ocean has not warmed considerably and how would you know atmospheric warming is any different than natural warming since this is all based on flawed computer models?

 

I'm not saying the current warming is unprecedented. I'm saying that it cannot be explained by invoking natural processes alone.

The ocean's have warmed quite a bit in the last several decades.

 

Deny. Deny. Deny.

Then point me to the research that disproves it.

I understand the difference. What I'm saying is the numbers don't add up. But, if you think they do then show me the research that backs up your claim.

 

Who says it can? CO2 has had an effect, just not a large one.

 

Forgotten that we don't have that many years worth of reliable ocean temp data, have you?

 

How many 10 to the 22nd Joules to a tenth of a degree F.?

 

Do you understand what a joule is?

 

Yes. It takes 1000 j warm 1 kg of air by 1.0C. It takes 4000 j to warm 1 kg of water by 1.0C and it takes a further 334,000 j to make the phase change from solid to liquid and 2,264,000 j to change water from liquid to gas. The atmosphere only weighs 5e18 kg so there's been enough heat accumulated in the ocean since 1995 to warm the air by several degrees C. No need to worry though, the ocean and air are in a state of near equilibrium so it's not like all of that heat can transfer to the air. The ocean has stored more than 90% of the accumulated energy. The melting of sea ice and glaciers accounts for few percentage points. The atmosphere actually only accounts for a couple percentage points itself at most. Because the ocean is so much more massive and because water has a higher specific heat capacity than air it makes the ocean a really efficient heat storage reservoir.

 

Can you post a link to a legitimate source that make a compelling argument that the ARGO data is useless?

 

And yet the harder questions is show a legitimate source that makes a compelling argument that the ARGO data is useful....

I would expect that bar to be significantly higher...

 

Now multiply that by all the grams in the ocean. Converted to Celsius that equates to a couple hundredths of a degree and well below the ability of the sensors to detect.

 

For the ocean:

It takes 4000 j/kg to warm water 1.0C. The entire ocean weighs 1e21 kg.
According to IPCC AR5 the top 75m have warmed at 0.1C per decade while the top 750m have warmed by 0.015C per decade.

For the atmosphere:

It takes 1000 j/kg to warm air 1.0C. The entire atmosphere weighs 5e18 kg.
10e22 joules is enough to warm the air by several degrees (theoretically anyway).

 

The ARGO temperature accuracy is 0.002C. And here is the spec sheet for the instrument payload on the floats.

 

So what you are saying is that within that 0.002 degrees it can’t be accurate. Are not these the Argo buoys that we’re determined to be in error because they were not showing enough warming so were adjusted up to more reflect the unscientific ship engine intake and bucket temperatures?

 

That may be a separate topic. The bouy adjustments for the conventional datasets like NASA GISS and NOAA GlobalTemp are in regard to the air temperature. The ship intake issue does sound like it pertains to water temperature, but I don't know a lot about that topic. I'll look it up though.

 

From the Karl et. al. Paper.

 

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar...bal_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html

No, you have proved many times that you do not.

Which numbers? How do you know they don't? AGW screamers CLAIM and ASSUME that all natural cycles and influences have been accurately accounted for in their models, but have no evidence whatever to support that claim. None.

The biggest two-year drop in global temperature ever recorded occurred as the sunspot cycle declined rapidly to the weakest it has been in several decades. And brain-dead AGW screamers dismiss this as coincidence...?