|
Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 13 2017, 07:46 PM (1,547 Views)
|
|
nNeo
|
Mar 20 2017, 11:11 AM
Post #41
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Humans are burning billions of tons of carbon every year. That carbon was collected by plants over millions of years. The CO2 we are producing goes into the air, and from there part of it goes into the oceans via precipitation and direct absorption.
The CO2 humans emit can't magically disappear, nor can the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 be attributed to it magically appearing out of the oceans or somewhere else.
Basic science indeed.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Mar 20 2017, 11:48 AM
Post #42
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,663
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Quote:
-
LOL, you have got to be kidding. Ocean acidification has been widely reported, is easily tested, and not controversial at all. Were you really not aware of it?
I'm not sure which study should be considered "definitive" There have been many, all roughly agreeing.
Nonsense.
Again, you miss the point.
- Quote:
-
Ocean Acidification Claims Are Misleading – And Deliberately So
Published on August 12, 2014
Written by Ross McLeod, PSI Researcher
http://principia-scientific.org/ocean-acidification-claims-are-misleading-and-deliberately-so/
Point 1:
- Quote:
-
Indisputable Facts
carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline;
there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH;
the concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere;
the mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere;
CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that atmosphere.
Discussion About Those Facts
Besides the above chemical and physical facts, it is well known that an increase in water temperature will reduce the solubility of CO2.
Leave any opened cold carbonated drink – from champagne to Coke – to warm up and see what happens to the fizz, which is CO2 in case you didn’t know. Your warmed champagne/Coke goes ‘flat’ because the carbon dioxide has escaped the liquid and entered the atmosphere.
It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.
The oceans are outgassing CO2 due to the slight warming trend since the end of the Mini Ice Age (c. 1850’s). The exact cause of this trend IS NOT known and remains the subject of much scientific debate! There is evidence that there is a gap of many centuries between planet-wide temperature swings and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Point 2:
- Quote:
-
The Climate Alarmist’s Case
Climate alarmists are stunningly contradictory and actually amusing if they didn’t hold the world at ransom over this non-problem of a slight increase in CO2 concentrations.
They point out the slight increasing trend in temperatures as alarming!
They point out the side effect of this slight increasing trend in temperatures – rising sea levels – as alarming!
Then they claim man’s CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidification – as alarming!
But you simply cannot have it both ways – that is an “Inconvenient Truth”!
Summary And Conclusion
Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take Your Pick – REAL SCIENCE Says You Can’t Have Both.
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Mar 20 2017, 11:53 AM
Post #43
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,663
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
The same point is made here:
- Quote:
-
Via the Hockey Schtick: A paper published Friday in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or “acidified” if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the “ocean acidification” scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry’s Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.
Thus, if global warming resumes after the “pause,” ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:
“Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both.”
In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the “acidification” alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more “acidified” lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 20 2017, 12:39 PM
Post #44
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Ross McLeod appears to have no scientific credentials, and begins with an apples to oranges comparison between a chilled soft drink and the ocean. His Pepsi gets fizzy when it warms up, so the sea should too, right? Wrong. In the soft drink analogy, a small mass of liquid is in an effectively infinite volume of gas, and warming a good deal going from refrigerator to room temp. Soft drinks are pressurized with almost pure CO2. As they warm, and the ambient pressure is lowered (by opening the bottle) the saturation point changes and CO2 bubbles out. This is NOT what happens in the ocean, and to suggest it does shows lack of basic science literacy.
The ocean (thank God!) is not compressed with CO2 or refrigerated. We have a fairly straightforward application of Henry's law.
C1/P1 = C2/P2
The amount of CO2 in the ocean, and hence its pH, is driven by the partial pressure in the atmosphere. If atmospheric CO2 goes up, dissolved CO2 goes up.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 50% over the past century. Ocean temps have increased a fraction of a percent, which is a significant reflection of energy balance (given the very high specific heat of water, and huge mass of the sea) but relative to the major change in pressure, the slight change in temp doesn't much matter to pH / CO2 concentration
Edited by nNeo, Mar 21 2017, 02:13 PM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 20 2017, 12:41 PM
Post #45
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
btw, the "little ice age" was regional and short term. It didn't alter global deep ocean temps, or gas balance. Your sources are not credible at all.
Edited by nNeo, Mar 20 2017, 01:14 PM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
_g R_
|
Mar 20 2017, 12:53 PM
Post #46
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,668
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #252
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2016
|
When internal documents revealed earlier this year that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests were secretly funding scientifically discredited studies authored by climate contrarian Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, the news didn’t come as a complete surprise.
Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report identified Soon—an aerospace engineer with little formal training in climatology—as one of a dozen scientists affiliated with more than 40 ExxonMobil-funded think tanks that then constituted the backbone of the climate change–denier PR machine. Soon, who erroneously claims the sun is largely responsible for global warming, produced work for at least five of these ExxonMobil-backed groups, including the now infamous Heartland Institute. READ ON http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/su15-documenting-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-deception#.WNAIplXyuM8
Edited by _g R_, Mar 20 2017, 12:54 PM.
|
|
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Mar 20 2017, 07:16 PM
Post #47
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,382
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Mar 19 2017, 09:36 AM
- nNeo
- Mar 16 2017, 11:33 PM
- W A Mozart
- Mar 16 2017, 09:28 PM
CO2 increases are coming from the oceans as a result of slight temperature increases.
Were that true, Ocean pH levels would be rising. They are falling. The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, but still not keeping up with added emissions.
Wrong again. Basic science, as ocean temperatures warm, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures cool, CO2 is absorbed. The point to all of this is central to the fraud that is global warming. Al Gore made the point in his stupid film an "Inconvenient Truth." It is at the very core of the global warmer's argument. That is, ice core samples taken from the Arctic clearly show the relationship between global warming and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's there! There is indeed a correlation. It's been confirmed by other ice core samples as well. But, ....but, here's the point. Al Gore makes the argument that the RISE in CO2 through history of time on earth TRIGGERED (I hate using that word... :oyvey ) the periodic rise in global temperatures, proof positive that what we're doing today, increasing CO2 through burning fossil fuels, is triggering another global warming episode. Er, this from a guy who got a "D" in science when attending Yale. (  ) Gore's point is that this time, the rise in CO2 is man-made and very unnatural. Wrong! Wrong! When in fact the correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures is just the OPPOSITE...! As global temperatures increase throughout time, more and more CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere, proof coming from ice core samples. There is, in fact, a nearly 800 year lag between increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 levels. It takes a long time for oceans to react to changing temperatures. Then, when temperatures begin to cool and a new ice age begins, CO2 levels drop as more and more CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. Again, with another 600 to 800 year time lag. Point? CO2 is not, and never was, the driving greenhouse gas pointing to global temperature changes. Again, it's only .054 of all greenhouse gases and, most importantly, it is a LAGGING indicator. This is at the very core of the lunacy that is the global warming argument. You lose...! Mozart Yep. Warming happens first, then Co2 rise. This is historic fact.
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 20 2017, 07:27 PM
Post #48
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Mar 20 2017, 07:16 PM
Warming happens first, then Co2 rise. This is historic fact. He said, having read none of the underlying science.
Apples / oranges.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Mar 20 2017, 07:39 PM
Post #49
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,663
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Mar 20 2017, 11:48 AM
- Quote:
-
LOL, you have got to be kidding. Ocean acidification has been widely reported, is easily tested, and not controversial at all. Were you really not aware of it?
I'm not sure which study should be considered "definitive" There have been many, all roughly agreeing.
Nonsense. Again, you miss the point. - Quote:
-
Ocean Acidification Claims Are Misleading – And Deliberately So
Published on August 12, 2014
Written by Ross McLeod, PSI Researcher http://principia-scientific.org/ocean-acidification-claims-are-misleading-and-deliberately-so/Point 1: - Quote:
-
Indisputable Facts
carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline;
there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH;
the concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere;
the mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere;
CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that atmosphere.
Discussion About Those Facts
Besides the above chemical and physical facts, it is well known that an increase in water temperature will reduce the solubility of CO2.
Leave any opened cold carbonated drink – from champagne to Coke – to warm up and see what happens to the fizz, which is CO2 in case you didn’t know. Your warmed champagne/Coke goes ‘flat’ because the carbon dioxide has escaped the liquid and entered the atmosphere.
It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.
The oceans are outgassing CO2 due to the slight warming trend since the end of the Mini Ice Age (c. 1850’s). The exact cause of this trend IS NOT known and remains the subject of much scientific debate! There is evidence that there is a gap of many centuries between planet-wide temperature swings and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Point 2: - Quote:
-
The Climate Alarmist’s Case
Climate alarmists are stunningly contradictory and actually amusing if they didn’t hold the world at ransom over this non-problem of a slight increase in CO2 concentrations.
They point out the slight increasing trend in temperatures as alarming!
They point out the side effect of this slight increasing trend in temperatures – rising sea levels – as alarming!
Then they claim man’s CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidification – as alarming!
But you simply cannot have it both ways – that is an “Inconvenient Truth”!
Summary And Conclusion
Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take Your Pick – REAL SCIENCE Says You Can’t Have Both.
Mozart Ugh...!
One keeps putting interesting and undisputed science on these blogs and our friend,NNeo, dances past them.
So, in hopes of actually getting a response here that makes sense, I am posting it again!
Simple. True or False. OK?
It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Mar 20 2017, 07:52 PM
Post #50
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,382
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- nNeo
- Mar 20 2017, 07:27 PM
- Robertr2000
- Mar 20 2017, 07:16 PM
Warming happens first, then Co2 rise. This is historic fact.
He said, having read none of the underlying science. Apples / oranges. The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.
It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.
NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels. NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data. Beware of making conclusions about turning points or lags when only one single point may be involved. NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data is 150,000-100,000 years ago.
The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 20 2017, 08:01 PM
Post #51
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Mar 20 2017, 07:39 PM
interesting and undisputed science
0/3 actually. Your source overlooked something fundamental. No real scientist would make that mistake. What you post is commentary. It's not hard to dispute, and not very interesting as most of it is common copypasta. Repeatedly regurgitating quotes that you seem not to understand doesn't give me much to work with.
- W A Mozart
- Mar 20 2017, 07:39 PM
in hopes of actually getting a response here that makes sense
I addressed that point directly. Your inability to make sense of it may be beyond my control.
Edited by nNeo, Mar 21 2017, 02:06 PM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 20 2017, 08:11 PM
Post #52
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Robert, you've come to the party late, so I'll repeat briefly. Long term temperature rise, as sampled in Vostok cores, can certainly release CO2, both from oceans and land sinks that are suddenly unfrozen and exposed. That says nothing about what caused the original warming. Normal ice ages are not driven by CO2, so there it's warming causing atmospheric changes, as you posted. Apples.
What we've done now is increase greenhouse gasses enough to cause warming. That's a different forcing than ice age cycles, and on a much shorter time scale. Oranges.
Unfortunately the secondary effects of warming will still happen too, so more CO2 and methane will be released as things melt.
Edited by nNeo, Mar 23 2017, 06:33 PM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Mar 22 2017, 10:25 AM
Post #53
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,663
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Mar 20 2017, 07:39 PM
- W A Mozart
- Mar 20 2017, 11:48 AM
- Quote:
-
LOL, you have got to be kidding. Ocean acidification has been widely reported, is easily tested, and not controversial at all. Were you really not aware of it?
I'm not sure which study should be considered "definitive" There have been many, all roughly agreeing.
Nonsense. Again, you miss the point. - Quote:
-
Ocean Acidification Claims Are Misleading – And Deliberately So
Published on August 12, 2014
Written by Ross McLeod, PSI Researcher http://principia-scientific.org/ocean-acidification-claims-are-misleading-and-deliberately-so/Point 1: - Quote:
-
Indisputable Facts
carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline;
there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH;
the concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere;
the mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere;
CO2 is currently only 0.04% of that atmosphere.
Discussion About Those Facts
Besides the above chemical and physical facts, it is well known that an increase in water temperature will reduce the solubility of CO2.
Leave any opened cold carbonated drink – from champagne to Coke – to warm up and see what happens to the fizz, which is CO2 in case you didn’t know. Your warmed champagne/Coke goes ‘flat’ because the carbon dioxide has escaped the liquid and entered the atmosphere.
It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.
The oceans are outgassing CO2 due to the slight warming trend since the end of the Mini Ice Age (c. 1850’s). The exact cause of this trend IS NOT known and remains the subject of much scientific debate! There is evidence that there is a gap of many centuries between planet-wide temperature swings and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Point 2: - Quote:
-
The Climate Alarmist’s Case
Climate alarmists are stunningly contradictory and actually amusing if they didn’t hold the world at ransom over this non-problem of a slight increase in CO2 concentrations.
They point out the slight increasing trend in temperatures as alarming!
They point out the side effect of this slight increasing trend in temperatures – rising sea levels – as alarming!
Then they claim man’s CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidification – as alarming!
But you simply cannot have it both ways – that is an “Inconvenient Truth”!
Summary And Conclusion
Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take Your Pick – REAL SCIENCE Says You Can’t Have Both.
Mozart
Ugh...! One keeps putting interesting and undisputed science on these blogs and our friend,NNeo, dances past them. So, in hopes of actually getting a response here that makes sense, I am posting it again! Simple. True or False. OK? It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water.Mozart Ugh....again and again! Getting on YOUR pedestal and claiming that you got this global warming thing down pat, without addressing the real science put forth by the opposition (the anti-global warmers), especially as it relates to CO2, is frustrating, aggravating and disappointing.
OK.
So, let's make this simple...!
Let's put the BASIC science arguments on the table, and you give them a True or False? OK? With me? Simple. You don't need to put explanations yet, just a True or a False, ...then we'll take it from there.
1) It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water. ...(T/F)...?
2) Carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline; (T/F) ...?
3) There isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH; (T/F)...?
4) The concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere; (T/F)...?
5) The mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere; (T/F) ....?
6) Which is it? .....
"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense." ...choose!
7)
"Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity."
(T/F) ...?
8)
" But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute. The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?"
(T/F) ...?
9)
"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. "
(T/F)....?
10)
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been."
(T/F)...?
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 22 2017, 10:29 AM
Post #54
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Dude, you are literally posting the same crap over and over. it is not "real science". Most of these points I've addressed already, but I'm willing to play along. I'm expecting a client call in a few min, so I may have to edit this over the next couple hours.
- W A Mozart
- Mar 22 2017, 10:25 AM
Let's put the BASIC science arguments on the table, and you give them a True or False? OK? With me? Simple. You don't need to put explanations yet, just a True or a False, ...then we'll take it from there.
You get what you get.
1) It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water. ...(T/F)...? under-defined, but FALSE if we're talking about the ocean and atmosphere. I explained why above. As an aside, no real scientist would say "it's not rocket science" unironically.
Your barely literate blogger hasn't bothered to qualify conditions. He compared a small volume of chilled water, pressurized with gas, placed in a much warmer, and effectively infinite volume of gas at lower pressure, with a gas/water system in equilibrium to which more gas has been added. He's either awkwardly trying to mislead, or genuinely doesn't understand the difference himself.
2) Carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline; (T/F) ...?
True-ish, though unscientifically phrased. CO2 in water is carbonic acid. The ocean has historically been around 8.2. It's fallen to about 8.1 weakly alkaline but becoming less so (acidification) "very stable" is entirely subjective.
3) There isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH; (T/F)...?
Obviously false. It's made a measurable difference in less than 50 years.
4) The concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere; (T/F)...?
A restatement of #3, but more vague "will come?" False
5) The mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere; (T/F) ....?
True-ish The mass ratio seems about right. "Huge" is subjective. However the part that supports most life, and is most affected by the atmosphere on human time scales is the much smaller portion near the surface. I cba to calculate it now, but I think the epipelagic zone is close to the mass of the atmosphere, and that's where the interaction occurs.
6) Which is it? .....
"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense." ...choose!
Both statements are plainly false. He's either too dumb to understand what's actually happening, or too dishonest to admit it.
Antropogenic emission of CO2 above natural rare increases partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This increases radiative forcing, warming the atmosphere, land, and the ocean. It also adds CO2 to the ocean, lowering pH
Land and water are getting warmer and more acidic (or less alkaline, depending on the starting point). This has been confirmed by multiple studies in many locations.
7)
"Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity."
(T/F) ...? False. I addressed all that elsewhere, more than once. Net effect is what counts.
8)
" But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute. The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?"
(T/F) ...? Insanely false. Oceans are a carbon sink. Your own link elsewhere in this thread even said so. 9)
"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. "
(T/F)....? False. Addressed previously also.
It's nice that you are now admitting humans are adding net CO2 to the atmosphere, but emissions are at least 34GT even by using the energy industry's own data.
10)
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been."
(T/F)...? Super duper false. You can re-read my previous posts for more on that too
Science is not a popularity contest. If someone has a hypothesis genuinely suggesting an alternative to widely accepted, historically supported science, set up a study. If you're right, you score big. If you're wrong, which is usually what happens, you've at least ruled something out. It ain't sexy, but it's how science gets done.
Sitting around on a blog saying "everyone is wrong" with no supporting evidence is silly. Invoking someone who does that as "proof" of anything, in a field you yourself don't understand, even more so.
edit - oooh! 3 guests reading the thread suddenly. Did ya call for help? lol x waves x
Edited by nNeo, Mar 22 2017, 12:28 PM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 22 2017, 11:58 AM
Post #55
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
I must give the kid props for creativity though. On a rhetorical level, that was about like saying:
A bird is light and can fly A cow is much heavier than a bird, so it can't fly. A 737 has 65 times the mass of a cow, so reports of them flying must be false.
Common tricks of AGW (and other) science deniers are forms of over-simplification whereby significant factors are ignored, or minutia given dominance.
Edited by nNeo, Mar 22 2017, 12:20 PM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 22 2017, 12:35 PM
Post #56
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Now it's my turn for a question. We can easily establish that over 30GT of CO2 are emitted by humans, yet your blogger claims " Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2." AND that wetlands and oceans are emitting more CO2 than they absorb.
How could that be possible? You don't need details, just tell me where that anthropogenic 30+GT went.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Mar 22 2017, 03:53 PM
Post #57
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,382
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- nNeo
- Mar 20 2017, 08:11 PM
Robert, you've come to the party late, so I'll repeat briefly. Long term temperature rise, as in Vostok cores, can certainly release CO2, both from oceans and land sinks that are suddenly unfrozen and exposed. That says nothing about what caused the original warming. Normal ice ages are not driven by CO2, so there it's warming causing atmospheric changes, as you posted. Apples.
What we've done now is increase greenhouse gasses enough to cause warming. That's a different forcing than ice age cycles, and on a much shorter time scale. Oranges.
Unfortunately the secondary effects of warming will still happen too, so more CO2 and methane will be released as things melt.

Co2 is not warming the Earth. nor Mars nor Pluto.
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Mar 22 2017, 08:43 PM
Post #58
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,663
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- nNeo
- Mar 22 2017, 10:29 AM
Dude, you are literally posting the same crap over and over. it is not "real science". Most of these points I've addressed already, but I'm willing to play along. I'm expecting a client call in a few min, so I may have to edit this over the next couple hours. - W A Mozart
- Mar 22 2017, 10:25 AM
Let's put the BASIC science arguments on the table, and you give them a True or False? OK? With me? Simple. You don't need to put explanations yet, just a True or a False, ...then we'll take it from there.
You get what you get.
1) It is therefore not rocket science to state with complete confidence that warm water naturally contains less CO2 than cold water. ...(T/F)...? under-defined, but FALSE if we're talking about the ocean and atmosphere. I explained why above. As an aside, no real scientist would say "it's not rocket science" unironically.
Your barely literate blogger hasn't bothered to qualify conditions. He compared a small volume of chilled water, pressurized with gas, placed in a much warmer, and effectively infinite volume of gas at lower pressure, with a gas/water system in equilibrium to which more gas has been added. He's either awkwardly trying to mislead, or genuinely doesn't understand the difference himself.
2) Carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolved in pure water, makes a weak, unstable acid, whilst the ocean water is a very stable buffer with a pH averaging around 8, which means it is alkaline; (T/F) ...?
True-ish, though unscientifically phrased. CO2 in water is carbonic acid. The ocean has historically been around 8.2. It's fallen to about 8.1 weakly alkaline but becoming less so (acidification) "very stable" is entirely subjective.
3) There isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH; (T/F)...?
Obviously false. It's made a measurable difference in less than 50 years.
4) The concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere; (T/F)...?
A restatement of #3, but more vague "will come?" False
5) The mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere; (T/F) ....?
True-ish The mass ratio seems about right. "Huge" is subjective. However the part that supports most life, and is most affected by the atmosphere on human time scales is the much smaller portion near the surface. I cba to calculate it now, but I think the epipelagic zone is close to the mass of the atmosphere, and that's where the interaction occurs.
6) Which is it? .....
"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense." ...choose!
Both statements are plainly false. He's either too dumb to understand what's actually happening, or too dishonest to admit it.
Antropogenic emission of CO2 above natural rare increases partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This increases radiative forcing, warming the atmosphere, land, and the ocean. It also adds CO2 to the ocean, lowering pH
Land and water are getting warmer and more acidic (or less alkaline, depending on the starting point). This has been confirmed by multiple studies in many locations.
7)
"Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity."
(T/F) ...? False. I addressed all that elsewhere, more than once. Net effect is what counts.
8)
" But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute. The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?"
(T/F) ...? Insanely false. Oceans are a carbon sink. Your own link elsewhere in this thread even said so. 9)
"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. "
(T/F)....? False. Addressed previously also.
It's nice that you are now admitting humans are adding net CO2 to the atmosphere, but emissions are at least 34GT even by using the energy industry's own data.
10)
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been."
(T/F)...? Super duper false. You can re-read my previous posts for more on that too
Science is not a popularity contest. If someone has a hypothesis genuinely suggesting an alternative to widely accepted, historically supported science, set up a study. If you're right, you score big. If you're wrong, which is usually what happens, you've at least ruled something out. It ain't sexy, but it's how science gets done.
Sitting around on a blog saying "everyone is wrong" with no supporting evidence is silly. Invoking someone who does that as "proof" of anything, in a field you yourself don't understand, even more so.
edit - oooh! 3 guests reading the thread suddenly. Did ya call for help? lol x waves x Dude, ...chill..!
As soon as I find some time I'll dissect your answers and respond.
Right now I need a cognac...!
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
Post #59
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,663
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Wow.
I'm left incredulous. You've come on this board and have challenged most/all of the scientists I quoted in our ongoing discussion. The problem here is, who knows more, ....you or them? Eight out of ten, you said, ...were false! Wow. I pluck most of the quotes from some of the best anti-global warming blogs, supported by eminent scientists of all sorts, many with prestigious scientific awards in tow, and you say you know more than them? It is difficult for me to tackle each and every response to the above 10 questions, so I'll limtit myself to these three, which in tandem, provide some logical suppositions. They are these:
- Quote:
-
3) There isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH; (T/F)...?
Obviously false. It's made a measurable difference in less than 50 years.
4) The concentration of enough CO2 to significantly reduce the ocean’s pH will not come from the atmosphere; (T/F)...?
A restatement of #3, but more vague "will come?" False
5) The mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere; (T/F) ....?
True-ish The mass ratio seems about right. "Huge" is subjective. However the part that supports most life, and is most affected by the atmosphere on human time scales is the much smaller portion near the surface. I cba to calculate it now, but I think the epipelagic zone is close to the mass of the atmosphere, and that's where the interaction occurs.
How does one argue that "there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean’s pH," when you agree with point 5 that, "the mass of the oceans is a huge 268 times the mass of the atmosphere?" Again, CO2 is only .054 of greenhouse gases, which is 1/268th of the mass of the oceans, and this tiny amount of gas can affect the oceans PH levels? Really? Does that make any sense? Where is the logic here?
The point being made here is that ANY change in the oceans PH levels has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. That's the point that these people made, and you somehow, someway disagree. Completely stumped at the logic here.
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
nNeo
|
Mar 23 2017, 09:32 PM
Post #60
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,849
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
The problem is that you don't understand how science works. You are not alone, sadly, most Americans don't understand how science works, nor do they have enough basic literacy in it to spot what should be obvious as snake oil.
- W A Mozart
- Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
You've come on this board and have challenged most/all of the scientists I quoted in our ongoing discussion.
I am not "challenging your scientists". It's not about me, or them. It's about the science... which most of them seem to be ignoring, or applying only selectively. That's typical when you have an agenda, and the reason this stuff is on blogs, not in real science journals.
- W A Mozart
- Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
The problem here is, who knows more, ....you or them?
That's not a "problem" or a question that matters. Argument to authority is a common fallacy, along with it's meaner little brother, ad hominem. Science doesn't give a damn who "knows more" or how decorated you are. Does your theory fit the data? Can you repeat the results? Does it stand up to scrutiny? I've seen first years call out phds on basic arithmetic. Right is right.
- W A Mozart
- Mar 23 2017, 08:02 PM
I pluck most of the quotes from some of the best anti-global warming blogs, supported by eminent scientists of all sorts, many with prestigious scientific awards in tow Which speaks more about the state of anti-global-warming blogs than about me. I suggest reading some science journals and actually trying to understand the field. "Plucking" things that support your preexisting bias isn't serving you well.
Most of the people you quote have questionable credentials, at least in the areas they are commenting on. Many have obvious financial or ideological motivations. In reality, almost no "eminent scientists" in atmospheric chemistry, climatology, geophysics, or any closely related fields doubt global warming. So typically you're quoting people way outside their area of legit expertise, or straight up cranks. Notice how many of the ones with credentials are retired, or have changed away (often after failure or scandal) from the fields they started in. A few actually know what they are doing, but have sold out, often to mining or oil lobby, and are willing to lie for money.
This usually goes wrong since there is no consistent, scientifically coherent case for "anti-global-warming" Your bloggers are prone to self-contradiction -- "plucking" a sciencey assertion for one argument that undermines one for something else -- or simply making claims they can't back up with anything solid. For example: "ANY change in the oceans PH levels has absolutely nothing to do with CO2" is based on a non-scientific comparison between the total mass of the atmosphere and the total mass of the ocean. It sounds sensible, but as it turns out when you apply the real mechanics, plug in actual numbers & time scales, it's a red herring. So they haven't "made the point" at all, they've just asserted it and acted like it should be accepted.
side note: i was right, the Epipelagic Zone -- which is where the air-water mixing (hence CO2 absorption) and solar energy absorption are happening -- is actually less than the mass of the atmosphere. Eventually gases and heat can get to deeper layers via thermohaline circulation & such, but that takes a long time for reasons that would turn this into an even bigger wall of text.
Roughly - based on ocean surface of 510 million square km, nominal sea water density of 1.029
Atmosphere 5.15 x 10^18 kg Epipelagic ocean 1.5 x 10^18 kg
So the part of the ocean that's changing isn't as big as your blogger thinks, not that his argument would hold up in either case. If we had normal rates of change, as typical at the end of an ice age, the seas might actually be able to process the increase, or most of it. But this is not normal. We're released millions of years worth of stored carbon in a century.
Edited by nNeo, Mar 24 2017, 01:47 AM.
|
|
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|