mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

So you think you know everything there is to know about what effects Earth's climate? That's hubris at an incalculable level.

 

AGW is the moniker given to how the current climate change model plays out after WWII.

The current climate change model adequately explains both past and present climate change. It includes all climate forcing agents and processes. That's why it's so successful. "Natural" and "Anthroprogenic" aren't themselves causes. They are just categories under which the individual physical processes can land. Prior to the industrial revolution we label the net effect of all physical processes as natural because humans did not provide a significant modulation. After WWII we label the net effect of all physical process as anthroprogenic because humans do provide a significant modulation.

Contrast this with your climate model. Your model can't explain either past or present climate changes. It's completely inadequate and provides no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever. It largely ignores the greenhouse gas effect for starters and instead either focuses on the Sun or magic fairy dust (the unidentified and unnamed force you speak of) depending on the day of week it is.

 

No one tries to say it is.

 

Long winded way of avoiding what I said which is AGW is based on the supposed fact that man is currently the primary driver of climate change.

 

No just the associated record heat periods.

 

That's because you get your science from the media. The rest of us get our science from real scientists.

My advice is to stop reading about science from media outlets that don't have expertise in science and have a history of misrepresenting the science.

Anyway, the following may be an interesting read for you.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

You'll see that the ice age predictions from the 70's were never the consensus; not even close. You'll see that in most cases the media was bending and twisting qualified quotes from scientists to make it seem like they were predicting an ice age when, in fact, they were only saying that if another Yellowstone eruption were to occur, or if another meteor were to strike, or some other cataclysm then an ice age might ensue. And they're probably right by the way. We now know those things really do precipitate dramatic climate changes. There were really only a handful (at most) of scientists who really did think an ice age was imminent and even then it was mainly driven by a single person Reid Bryson, who by the way, happened to acknowledge that CO2 would cause global warming. He just thought the aerosol effect would dwarf the CO2 effect.

 

Just so you are aware, that is called data and is used when trying to figure out sciency stuff. They do the same thing for cold, like you initially posted.

 

Again, you ascribe something you think is "normal". Who assigned that task to you? I'd say, on a regular basis that "normal" is a construct for a weak mind. So, I don't think that +/- 2 ppm is a normal thing. I think it's an aggregated non linear expression that you don't understand. Simple as that. I would also point out that if the CO2 isn't found in the atmosphere it still has to exist somewhere. The fact that your limited modular approach to the world doesn't include that potential clearly limits what you're able to then see and understand.

 

Today. The physical processes dominating the change in the global mean temperature are being modulated primarily by man...TODAY. But, these physical processes are the exact same as they were in the past as well. That doesn't mean all of the other physical processes aren't in play. The still very much are. It's just that their magnitude of effect is very low relative to the magnitude of the greenhouse gas effect...TODAY. But, that's not always the case. The individual agents and processes ebb and flow with time. That's why you have to look at the net effect. We just happen to live in an era where the greenhouse gas effect is the dominating factor...TODAY.

 

And yet, the eastern portion of the southern pacific is warming up as it approaches summer... And suddenly, that's climate change. Seriously, you can't make this crap up.

 

IF by chance this is accurate it might be a big deal because warming an ocean takes far more time and energy that air. I have a feeling you are referring to "The Blob" though which is not a climate change issue.
https://www.iflscience.com/environm...what-can-it-tell-us-about-our-future-climate/

 

At least we agree that +2 ppm/yr isn't "normal". But, I can tell you that rate of change has never happened in the last 11,000 years. In fact, that rate of change is so rapid and sustained for so long that we're not even sure when or if it ever happened. We just know that it hasn't happened during any of the interglacial retreats over the last 1 million years. So if your definition of "normal" is that which occurs on a regular basis then +2 ppm/yr is the exact opposite of normal.

I also agree that carbon (not CO2) must exist somewhere. It doesn't always have to be in the atmosphere. It could just stay locked up in fossil fuels buried deep underground. Or we could dig up those fossil fuels releasing carbon into the air which quickly bonds with the O2 forming CO2. The ocean could (and does) sequester the carbon (that which is bound into the CO2 molecule) via aqueous CO2 or dissolved inorganic compounds like CaCO3 or HCO2 or the like. The rate at which the ocean absorbs aqueous CO2 is dictated in accordance with Henry's law. Dissolved inorganic carbon uptake is dictated in accordance with the Revelle Factor.

 

The eastern portion of the Southern Pacific ocean isn't the Eastern portion of the Northern Pacific ocean, is it?

So, nope, not discussing the "blob". In fact, addressing the AGW commentary on the normative warming of the southern Pacific ocean, as it it isn't supposed to be possible, even in summer... But you participated. We celebrate that....

 

Okay...then I have no idea what you are typing about.

 

Why do you think it is warming? And why do you think it has nothing to do with an increase in oceanic heat content?

Note I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to get you to think critically and to force you to engage and understand the science.

 

I just continue to be amazed at the tenacity of the orthodoxy in you. When you assert "never happened in the last 11K years", as if that has or makes your assertion both credible, or otherwise unique. Obviously, it doesn't. Nor does the observation provided have a substantive basis for being made as so many of the testing processes you'd rely on to underpin your narrative are questionable at best. Time and again, we have to constatntly reshape the assumptions made from previous studies. Ice cores are a good one here. as they tend to be almost useless in being reliable indicators of previous CO2 atmospheric concentration, especially as the length of time expands back in time.

Carbon exists. Cyclic process transforms carbon in our environment. Just saying. You are no more capable of determining the appropriate state of it, or where it "should" be than the average person is. You simply don't know this, and cannot credibly assert that you could. Simply put, carbon, and in conjunction with Oxygen, is a dynamic element in our environment. You cannot overcome this.

 

Not surprised...

 

Traditionally when such a thing is pointed out data is provided to further debate and share information. It may be you are not familiar with how discussion and debate work so I will just try to figure it out myself.

Are you referring to El Nino?

 

Deny the data. We're only one step away from just calling it all a hoax.

And it's not just ice core data that tells us what the CO2 concentration was. There are multiple lines of evidence and they all generally agree pretty well with each other.

Regardless, if you deny the data then you're not really in a position to be making any claims at all regarding the climate. Afterall, if you don't acknowledge any of the data then how can you claim the greenhouse gas effect isn't in play today?

I think what you're trying to argue for here is that I should believe that the greenhouse gas effect isn't in play today based on faith alone or just "because" it can't be that way or "nuh-uh" it can't ever happen.

Science has established a pretty good understanding that matches observations and make predictions that work. Might as well deny that branch of science while we're at right? Hell, let's just skip to the end game and deny all science and call it all a fraud and a hoax shall we?

 

Unfortunately 99% of American voters get their science from the media and that's what they vote on so that's what I respond to. Academic discussion is great but it ignores the reality of the media driven psuedo science that everyone forms opinions based upon.

 

I love the way warmers point to news stories on record heat as evidence for global warming then dismiss news stories of record cold is irrelevant

 

So we agree and you finally admit the AGW hypothesis is that man is the primary driver of the climate. Like pulling teeth but we finally got there.

 

Yeah...interesting isn't it. People interested in climate change focusing on warming temperatures because things are getting....warmer. They even don't talk about cold winter months in winter for one part of one part of the Earth...go figure. I love the way deniers focus on how cold winter gets in the U.S. while ignoring what its like on the other side of the planet where summer is happening.

 

TODAY...the physical processes that are causing the Earth to warming today are being modulated primarily by man...TODAY. That in no way means that the other processes aren't in play or that they are being ignored. That's my point. Specifically, it is the net effect of ALL forces and agents that drives the climate. It just so happens that out of ALL of them the greenhouse gas effect just happens to be dominating...TODAY.

If you have a different viewpoint then make it. If you have reason to believe that you are justified in completely ignoring one or more of these processes then make your case. Be convincing. Back it up with evidence. Show us how only a subset of physical processes can explain both past and present climate change at least as well as the established consensus. Show us how the greenhouse gas effect can be ignored entirely.

If you can't do this then I have no choice but to continue to use the current established theory which considers ALL processes and agents. Not that it's a bad choice because the current theory actually works and matches observations pretty well.

 

Maybe you should focus your dissatisfaction on the media instead of scientists?

Also, if you stop reading and linking to their articles or blogs then the misinformation that currently pervades the internet will eventually wane.