What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

Knut,
Let me quote myself:

Originally Posted by Guillermo

"The oceans have remained alkaline during the Phanerozoic (last 540 million years) except for a very brief and poorly understood time 55 million years ago.

Rainwater (pH 5.6) reacts with the most common minerals on Earth (feldspars) to produce clays, this is an acid consuming reaction, alkali and alkaline earths are leached into the oceans (which is why we have saline oceans), silica is redeposited as cements in sediments, the reaction consumes acid and is accelerated by temperature (see below).

In the oceans, there is a buffering reaction between the sea floor basalts and sea water (see below). Sea water has a local and regional variation in pH (pH 7.8 to 8.3). It should be noted that pH is a log scale and that if we are to create acid oceans, then there is not enough CO2 in fossil fuels to create oceanic acidity because most of the planet’s CO2 is locked up in rocks.

When we run out of rocks on Earth or plate tectonics ceases, then we will have acid oceans.

In the Precambrian, it is these reactions that rapidly responded to huge changes in climate (-40 deg C to +50 deg C), large sea level changes (+ 600m to -640m) and rapid climate shifts over a few thousand years from ’snowball’ or ’slushball’ Earth to very hot conditions (e.g. Neoproterozoic cap carbonates that formed in water at ~50 deg C lie directly on glacial rocks). During these times, there were rapid changes in oceanic pH and CO2 was removed from the oceans as carbonate. It is from this time onwards (750 Ma) that life started to extract huge amounts of CO2 from the oceans, life has expanded and diversified and this process continues (which is why we have low CO2 today.

The history of CO2 and temperature shows that there is no correlation.
Ask your local warmer:

1. Why was CO2 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation?

2. Why were both methane and CO2 higher than now in the Permian glaciation?

3. Why was CO2 5 times higher than now in the Cretaceous-Jurassic glaciation?

The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere via the oceans has led to carbonate deposition (i.e. CO2 sequestration).

The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reactions (as shown by Walker et al. 1981).

The literature on this subject is large yet the warmers chose to ignore this literature.

These feldspar and silicate buffering reactions are well understood, there is a huge amount of thermodynamic data on these reactions and they just happened to be omitted from argument by the warmers.

When ocean pH changes, the carbon species responds and in more acid oceans CO2 as a dissolved gas becomes more abundant."


Prof. Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

There are other causes for possible temporal local increases of CO2 (acidification) in the ocean, as emmissions from submarine volcanoes, i.e. About 85% of Earth's volcanoes are submarine, many of them erupting at depths where CO2 emmissions simply do not arrive to surface in the form of bubbles because of the high pressure. They just dissolve in the waters, increasing temporarily and locally (even if affecting big areas) the water acidification till the natural processes make carbon precipitate in carbonated products, or then part of them be released in the form of CO2 to atmosphere.

We have also discussed this already:

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Knut,
Oceans are essentially not acid but alkaline (pH 7.9 to 8.2). They can be temporarily and locally acid when excessive ammounts of CO2 are dissolved in water due to local circumstances, none of them being high athmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Submarine volcanoes are major contributors to dissolved oceanic CO2., wich does not bubble up to surface because of pressure and cold deep waters. Many mid oceanic ridge lavas are supersaturated in CO2.

Oceans are and have been alkaline for eons because all excesses in dissolved CO2 are, and always have been, eliminated by the forming of carbonate sediments which become carbonate rocks. The oceans are saturated with calcium carbonate to the depth of 4.8 km. Excesses of CO2 in water precipitates as calcium carbonate. Next mechanism to eliminate CO2 from oceans is releasing it to the athmosphere, in processes taking long periods of time and space.

Generally speaking, acidity is not the cause for corals damaging but changes in water temperature. Corals have thrieved at the Triasic, when athmospheric CO2 was 1000+ ppmv.

Perhaps you'll be interested in reading "Carbon dioxide and the oceans" Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, 2008 (http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=1212)

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

And now let me quote Lance Endersbee (You will not find him in Wikipedia):

"In essence:

- emissions of CO2 are not a cause of global climate change;

- there is no need for carbon trading, or geosequestration;

- measures to ensure energy conservation, pollution control and sustainability are all rational, and do not need to be justified by fear of climate change;

- CO2 in the atmosphere may decline in the next decade or so to the levels of the past century; and

- it is reasonable to be prepared for natural global cooling, similar to the periods of cold climate in our recent recorded history, when there was the severe and hazardous cold on occasion between 400 and 600AD during the Dark Ages, and 1300 to 1800 in the Little Ice Age. These were natural events and there is some evidence of naturally recurring behaviour.

- It is my view that the present fear of man-made climate change is quite mistaken. We should try harder to understand the real causes of natural climate change."

You may be interested in reading this from Prof. Endersbee:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...ate_Change.pdf

Cheers.

[Guest62110524]

we may name names, bandy abt all many of figures
but simply put, the sea was once in Azizona, the earth will do what it will, no matter what mere himans say, do, think
Look at Dr Peter Helmans studies

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The oceans simply CANNOT acidify; it is a chemical/physical impossibility as CO2 is very quickly precipitated out of solution as CaCo3 (calcium carbonate) so that CO2 (carbonic acid when dissolved) can NEVER oversaturate and cause acidification of the oceans.

As Ian Plimer recently sated " The Oceans will become acidic when we've run out of rocks."


From Tom Segalstad's Website:

"Carbon dioxide is an equally important requisite for life on Earth as oxygen. Plants need CO2 for their living (the photo synthesis), and humans and animals breath out CO2 from their respiration. In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO3 saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the following reactions (where 's' indicates the solid state, 'aq' is the aqueous state, and 'g' is the gaseous state):

Well, some smaller animals will not be able to build the carbonate shells, if acidification has occurred, they will simply be "soft shelled", with the result that will have, there are quite many studies of species that can't handle too much of this variation, and some of these are numerous and on the lower part of the food chain in the oceans...

The Royal society does not share the views of Segalstad and Plimer, though:

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

I'd like to recommend the last pdf file on that page, they are very open/ concerned with the possibilities of using the wrong data in the wrong way, but then again, They are normally quite bright headed over there...?

And to the sea temperature:

•The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. The July ocean surface temperature departure from the long-term average equals June 2009 value, which was also a record.

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?repor...ted=Get+Report)

And Guillermo, to come with data from the very early periods of this earth, I'd like to point out the fact that we, humans as a species were not about then, not to my knowledge at least. Have you seen the film (BBC?) "Crude", in the last part of that documentary, they're looking into some rock sediments, dark of colour. Those sediments were what made oil possible to develop, during some time, with the correct pressure, temperature. If I recall correctly, they had the conclusion that the sea had in large areas turned anocktic (uncertain of the spell check, but without oxygen at least), plants, plankton, animals died and settled on the seabed. There were high temperatures (they assumed also no ice), high level of CO2. Traces of this layer can be found over large parts of this world. 160 million years ago or something like that.

Well an anoctik ocean will also have large amounts of H2S, which is not an acid, but much closer to 7 than the "normal" pH of the oceans of today, so ther must've been a change in the pH in the oceans too.

Ever wondered why the Norwegian lobster industry fell apart?:
They call it "dead zones", I've been diving in a couple of these, and reported it...Thing is, on one of these spots I've been diving there earlier nice vegetation at the first dive, a couple of years later, everything was dead... (http://www.precaution.org/lib/marine...ng.080815.pdf).

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Knut,
Let me quote myself:

There are other causes for possible temporal local increases of CO2 (acidification) in the ocean, as emmissions from submarine volcanoes, i.e. About 85% of Earth's volcanoes are submarine, many of them erupting at depths where CO2 emmissions simply do not arrive to surface in the form of bubbles because of the high pressure. They just dissolve in the waters, increasing temporarily and locally (even if affecting big areas) the water acidification till the natural processes make carbon precipitate in carbonated products, or then part of them be released in the form of CO2 to atmosphere.

Submarine volcanoes are major contributors to dissolved oceanic CO2., wich does not bubble up to surface because of pressure and cold deep waters. Many mid oceanic ridge lavas are supersaturated in CO2.

Well then, if the pressure holds the CO2 in place, dissolved in deeper waters due to the pressure, I accept the argument that higher pressure, holds more gases dissolved (hmmm, why should i not...). Then why have we no reports of increased content of CO2 in the lower areas of the sea?

They have been looking for it....

What they have found; is that the period for CO2 to dissolve to deeper depths are much longer than they had expected.

[Jimbo1490]

Posted specifically for Boston, from the Jo Nova website:

Climate Money - Big Government outspends Big Oil
The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show



Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified (1) for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project (2) to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output (3) of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign (4) , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).

Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). (5, 6) Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.

The vitriol against Exxon reached fever pitch in 2005-2008. Environmental groups urged a boycott of Exxon for its views on Global Warming (7). It was labeled An Enemy of the Planet. (8) James Hansen called for CEOs of fossil energy companies to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” (9) In the next breath he mentioned Exxon.

Even The Royal Society, which ought to stand up for scientists and also for impeccable standards of logic, joined the chorus to implore Exxon to censor its speech. (10) The unprecedented letter from the 350-year-old institution listed multiple appeals to authority, but no empirical evidence to back its claim that a link with carbon and temperature was beyond doubt and discussion. The Royal Society claims that it supports scientists, but while it relies on the fallacious argument from authority how will it ever support whistle-blowers who by definition question “authority?”

The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun†, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.

While Exxon has been attacked repeatedly for putting this insignificant amount of money forward, few have added up the vested interests that are pro-AGW. Where are the investigative journalists? Money that comes from tax-payers is somehow devoid of corrupting incentives; while any money from Big Oil in a free market for ideas, is automatically a “crime”. The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun†, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.

Those who attack Exxon over just $2 million a year are inadvertently drawing attention away from the real power play and acting as unpaid PR agents for giant trading houses and large banks, which could sit a little uncomfortably with greenies and environmentalists. After all, on other days, some of these same groups throw rocks at big bankers.

The side show of blaming Big Oil hides the truth: that the real issue is whether there is any evidence, and that the skeptics are a grassroots movement that consists of well respected scientists and a growing group of unpaid volunteers.
References

1. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets. Wall St Journal “Climate Of Fear”, April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.

2. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets.

3. Big Sky Sequestration Project, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications...ion_Award.html.

4. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t.html#table_1.

5. The Australian: Rudd advertising campaign on climate change cost $13.9 million, 7 Jan 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-11949,00.html.

6. Exxon = oil, g*dammit!, by Geoff Colvin, Fortune Magazine. April 23 2007. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...398/index2.htm.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/f...on-022509.html.

7. Environmental Groups Planning to Urge Boycott of Exxon Mobil July 12, 2005. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...climate&st=cse.

8. Enemy of The Planet, Paul Krugman, April 17, 2006. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...climate&st=cse.

9. Are Big Oil and Big Coal Climate Criminals? New York Times, June 23 2008 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...society&st=cse.

10. Letter from Bob Ward of The Royal Society to Exxon, 4 Sept, 2006. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...ttertoNick.pdf.

† This is not an exaggeration. Try “not paying” taxes.

Jimbo

Anoxic, like hypoxic but more so.
"...Thing is, on one of these spots I've been diving there earlier nice vegetation at the first dive, a couple of years later, everything was dead..." -Did you shower first?

[Jimbo1490]

Guillermo,

Have you seen this map yet? :

http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistor...eusfinaeus.htm

Another article on the map:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3901

Jimbo

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by mark775

Anoxic, like hypoxic but more so.
"...Thing is, on one of these spots I've been diving there earlier nice vegetation at the first dive, a couple of years later, everything was dead..." -Did you shower first?

Hehe.. I've quit diving too, don't want those dead zones to spread...

(But the diving gear have a certain stinking smell after beeing in these "pits", smells more than me...).

[Guillermo]

Hi all,
just a quick pop-up to say I'll duly attend this thread later.

Cheers everybody

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

They have been looking for it....

Who are the ones who have been looking for it and haven't found it?
Submarine volcanoes occur along mid ocean ridges and molten basalts bring with them huge amounts of CO2 from the mantle of the earth.
There is a lot of literature on the subject.
Just search internet for molten basalt, carbon, ocean ridges, dissolved, degassing and the like and you'll find a wealth of information.

You may read:

Carbon solubility in Mid-Ocean Ridge basaltic melt at low pressures (250–1950 bar). Nathalie Jendrzejewskia, , , Thomas W. Trullb, a, Françoise Pineaua and Marc Javoya

CO2-depleted fluids from mid-ocean ridge-flank hydrothermal springs
Francis J. Sansone1, Michael J. Mottl1, Eric J. Olson2, C.Geoffrey Wheat3 and Marvin D. Lilley2


Towards a consistent mantle carbon flux estimate: Insights from volatile systematics (H2O/Ce, δD, CO2/Nb) in the North Atlantic mantle (14°N and 34°N). Cartigny, P., Pineau, F., Aubaud, C., and Javoy, M. (2007). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 265, 672-685.

....................

etc, etc.

Volcanoes and other volcanic ativity (gas vents, i.e.) add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Guillermo,

Have you seen this map yet? :

http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistor...eusfinaeus.htm

Another article on the map:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3901

Jimbo

No Jim, I had not, thanks. I had heard about the Piri Reis map, but not this one. I tend to not trust at first glance such kind of "misteries", but I'll investigate.
............

(later)Just not to post again:
I've found this:
http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2009/0...lan-quist.html
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/dicuoghi/P...inaeus_eng.htm
http://www.astroseti.org/imprime.php?codigo=1278 (in spanish)

"In Finaeus' map the islands of Java and Timor can be clearly seen, and that great continent dubbed "Terra Australis" and thought to extend up to the Magellan Straits to South America might then comprise also Australia, which is just to south-east of Java and Timor. The great gulf depicted in Terra Australis could then be a sketchy layout of Carpentaria Gulf, in which the two islands of Groote and Wellesley are recognizable, or the Bonaparte Gulf, near Java and Timor."


Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

Guillermo,

The thing that intrigued me about the map is that he recorded the locations of both the mountainous ridge and the rough location of the rivers correctly. Ever since 'discovery' in the early 19th century, these features have been invisible as they have been continuously covered in ice many thousands of feet in thickness. The only way he could have seen these features is that they were not covered in ice at the time. Since there is no question of the authenticity of the map, we must conclude that the climate was sufficiently different at that time to have permitted this situation. Warmer? Drier? Who knows? But it was very different.

Jimbo

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The only way he could have seen these features is that they were not covered in ice at the time.

The man is quite a Metusalem then..

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The man is quite a Metusalem then..

If you have an alternate idea as to how a 15th century cartographer could have drawn the images, then please share it with us. The authenticity of the drawing is not in question; it was 're-discovered' in 1960, so it would be hard to posit a motive for a forgery in 1960, at least 25 years before the AGW controversy.

Teddy remember that the age of the ice in the polar regions is really just a 'best guess'. Recently there have been expeditions to the north polar regions to recover WWII artifacts. Scientists informed them to expect the artifacts to be covered in something like 10 feet of ice. Instead they were covered in over 100 feet of ice! So when scientists tell you they 'know' exact age of polar ice based mostly on its thickness, I think it's proper to regard such claims with a healthy bit of skepticism.

Jimbo