arctic ice increases 60%

Well, not control as such, but influence (which I realise you don't accept).

Maybe so. I'm quite prepared to accept that the modelling is not perfect. I'd be surprised if it was. However, I have to wonder why you seem to think the whole thing is the result of some political conspiracy. What would be the motivation for such a conspiracy?


Of course. How could it demonstrate anything else? I've never trusted him anyway. He's probably a Communist.[/quote]


I'll accept that for the moment, but have to wonder how it is relevant since we already know temperatures are going up and ocean pH is decreasing. Even if the predictions for the future are badly modelled, the current data is concerning enough.

You're completely wrong on this point. Fossil carbon is not "indistinguishable" from recent carbon; in act it's no trick at all to distinguish one from another using isotopic mass-balance studies. Numerous such studies have been done over the years and NONE, that is NOT EVEN ONE shows the 25-30% fossil carbon fraction which is necessary to corroborate the IPCC's claim that "all or nearly all" of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to the burning of 'fossil' fuels. Another MASSIVE failure of the AGW narrative. I'm sure you'll just gloss right over it as unimportant, though

As exhaustive covered in the 'big thread' (the one you decided was 'all fluff'after you read 7 of 750 pages )

How about if I can find such a study?

 

The desirability or undesirability of a climate continues to be totally irrelevant to the discussion. Again. Still.

If you're going to bring it up again, just go ahead and C&P my answer above, it'll save me a few seconds I can't get back

They aren't claiming any such thing nor did I ever say they were. I said that they claim that is *SHOULD BE* twice what it actually is when their assertions about residence time and attribution are followed (tabulated) to their logical conclusion. IOW, they are UNABLE to forensically reconstruct today's atmosphere using their assumptions. Google the 'mystery sink'. This is yet another glaring failure in the narrative that all the chicken littles just gloss over, yet it is crucial to the validity of the narrative.

The models I refer to are those cited and relied upon in the most recent IPCC assessment report, and in the 2 earlier reports as well.

I do agree that the whole AGW narrative is farcical beyond credibility.

Power and control.

Again, nothing happening here. Oceanic pH is well within natural variation. It's been much lower in the past and that during epochs when great coral reefs were formed.

You're completely wrong on this point. Fossil carbon is not "indistinguishable" from recent carbon; in fact it's no great trick at all to distinguish one from another using isotopic mass-balance studies. Numerous such studies have been done over the years and NONE, that is NOT EVEN ONE shows the 25-30% fossil carbon fraction which is necessary to corroborate the IPCC's claim that "all or nearly all" of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to the burning of 'fossil' fuels. Another MASSIVE failure of the AGW narrative. I'm sure you'll just gloss right over it as unimportant, though

As exhaustively covered in the 'big thread' (the one you decided was 'all fluff' after you read 7 of 750 pages ) the natural sources are in fact MASSIVELY variable; the DAILY variations seen at Muana Loa are larger than the entire anthropogenic contribution! The atmosphere/ocean system trades stupendously large quantities of CO2 and there are daily, seasonal, annual and longer variations in the sources and fluxes of natural CO2, all of which are several orders of magnitude larger than the entire anthropogenic contribution. For example the atmosphere contains about 750 Gigatons (Gt) of Co2. The ocean contains about 20X this amount, IIRC or about 15000 Gt (15 thousand million tons). Tiny variations of 5% are common on the daily charts and much larger on the seasonal changes. There are also much larger 'epochal' variations in the paleaoclimate record. The highest annual anthropogenic output was for year 2007 which was 8.3 Gt (see the figures at CDIAC)

Why don't you start by finding the CO2 residence time study that shows CO2 has a long atmospheric residence time per the IPCC claims of "50-200 years" ALL the residence time studies based on actual REAL-TIME measurement show it is SHORT, only about 5 years. This fact is DEATH to the AGW narrative because without this you can't get CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere from 'incidental' sources like the burning of 'fossil' fuels in the first place.

That's a much simpler thing to consider and there have been a lot of such studies done over the years by a wide range of scientists in many countries with a plethora of funding sources.

Jimbo

 

I'm beginning to think that you don't keep up with current science.

FAQs about ocean acidification | EPOCA, European Project on Ocean Acidification

There are many, many more Q & A's at this web site. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

 

Your answer above mangled the quote tags so badly that it'd be impossible for a reader to tell which were your bits, and which were mine, without laboriously checking the earlier posts. It would be better if that were never copy/pasted.

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks. Now I have something I can check up on.

Ok, but to what end? They're governments. They already have power and control.

Also, from what I know of the inner workings of the IPCC, there historically has been political interference in the process of formulating the annual reports. However, it has been interference for the purpose of downplaying the problem.

In other words, influential governments like the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia have historically tried to get the reports toned down before release, to suit their own perceived interests (basically, established fossil fuel economy).

Now, if your conspiracy theory was true, I would expect the political interference would be for the purpose of exaggerating the problem, not downplaying it. So, this appears to contradict your theory.

ETA: The National Academy of Science would also have to be in on the conspiracy, since they totally back the currently accepted climate science. The NAS is not known for mindlessly toeing whatever line the current government prefers.

I'll check up on that too. I did watch a show on tv the other night though, which was about a study (not modelling) being done on a reef system in PNG, where there is carbon dioxide seeping from sea floor cracks in part of the reef system.

The pH is the seep area was lower than normal, and the reef ecosystem there was in very bad shape. So, that indicates that lower pH can be a very big problem for modern reef systems (which is why they were studying it, of course).

Ok, I'll look into that too. I'm curious as to how you would distinguish, since the only relevant isotopes I'm aware of are 12, 13 and 14. 14 isn't relevant to fossil carbon. The ratio of 12 and 13 would be the same in fossil carbon and in CO2 from modern biological sources, so you wouldn't be able to distinguish those. CO2 from volcanic sources has a different ratio, but the amounts from those sources should be known.

No, I hadn't decided it was all fluff. I'll go through the whole thing. It's just going to be very tedious and largely a waste of time, due to the very high percentage of fluff, if the first seven pages are any indication of the rest of the thread.

Ok, but the daily variation isn't really relevant anyway. What's relevant is the total output over longer periods. If the annual output was massively variable, that would be relevant. OTOH, if it's known, then presumably it can be included in the calculations.

Again, if these are known, they can be included in calculations (and should be).

But little of this appears to be directly relevant. Daily variations are of no interest when trying to discern long term trends (meaning long term by human standards). There's no point in mentioning daily variations if the total annual output is known. Daily variations are just a red herring. Ditto for seasonal changes.

Epochal variations are also of little interest to us at the moment. I don't expect our CO2 output to totally outweigh the influence of Milankovitch cycles (for example) but neither is it important at the moment. We know where we are in said cycle and are (or should be) concerned with other factors.

The figure for atmospheric CO2 is relevant, as is the ocean's storage capacity. The figure for 2007 is 1.1% of the atmospheric total. Presumably that's the current atmospheric total, not the pre-industral total. So, over a 20 year period it looks like we're putting out around 20% of the total, which is a significant amount.

Sure. I'm interested in this stuff, so will be taking a look.

 

Thanks for that info. One small request: would you please not use red for emphasis in quotes? It's very hard on the eyes on that background.

 

If variations of longer timescales are "irrelevant" then of what relevance is the anthropogenic contribution? This is complete pretzel logic! The atmosphere does not 'know' where 'extra' the CO2 comes from; it's all handled the same way

. The basic AGW alarm assertion is that there is a 'delicate balance' of sources and fluxes that *just happen* to equalize out so everything just hums along at ~280ppm CO2. The system is dominated (according to the alarmists) by positive feedbacks (with water vapor) and is therefore unstable. Just a little too much CO2 and the whole thing can go off the rails.

The reality is that the natural world already copes with huge amounts of 'extra' CO2 from natural sources; amounts that are much larger than the anthropogenic contribution is or could ever be. As the earth warms coming out of the LIA (it has been slowly warming for ~200 years now)
biotic processes speed up and produce more CO2. Both biotic and abiotic fluxes take up this 'extra' CO2. There is absolutely nothing special about anthropogenic CO2; it is fluxed just like 'extra' natural CO2 that might be introduced above any arbitrarily selected baseline concentration.

Your comments about 20% of the total are laughable. If we were responsible for 20% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere, if I understood your assertion correctly, why don't any of the mass balance studies show this? Why can they only find like <2% 'fossil' carbon fraction in the present atmosphere, and that after more than 100 years of burning of fossil fuels? Where did the rest go?

It's all a fairy tale.

Jimbo

 

Do you think the world began with the industrial revolution?

Do you not know that in the past (tens of thousands of years ago) ocean pH was lower than today? Vast coral forests formed during those times.

Excess CO2 precipitates out of seawater as calcium carbonate.

Just like the case with atmospheric CO2, the CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not contain enough 'fossil' carbon to corroborate the claim that recent atmospheric CO2 rise is attributable to anthropogenic emissions, therefore this 'excess' CO2 is almost entirely being produced by natural sources.

Are you not aware that Wikipedia has banned any and all credible contrary articles on this subject?

Jimbo

 

It's not pretzel logic at all. There's no point us worrying about variations over millions of years. We can't do anything about that, and wont be around to see it anyway. What directly concerns us is change on the scale of decades and centuries. If we can influence that, then it is worth thinking about.

Well, I'd call that a bit of an exaggeration, but we don't have to be completely dry with our wording anyway.

I think a more accurate way of putting it would be that if we double atmospheric CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels, we're highly likely to see results we wont like.

Which happens to coincide with the period since the Industrial Revolution. That, in itself, could be just coincidence. The problem for me is that although the MWP was a little bit warmer than the average for the past several millenia, and the LIA a little bit cooler, since the Industrial Revolution the temperature has been steadily going up, way above the level of the MWP. It shows no sign of coming down again, and is predicted to keep rising.

Sure, I realise CO2 is CO2. It's the total amount that is relevant to effects.

Well, they are laughable if you accept that basic arithmetic is laughable, since all I did was take the figures you provided and do a very basic calculation. If my arithmetic was wrong, feel free to show me where.

I didn't say we were responsible for 20% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere.* I said that your figures show we are responsible for emitting, over the past couple of decades, an amount roughly equal to 20% of the total current CO2 content of the atmosphere. I can't see how it can be otherwise, if the figures you gave me are correct.

Obviously it's not all staying in the atmosphere. I think most people know that. We know some is being absorbed by the ocean, which as you mentioned has a large capacity.

*In retrospect, I could have worded it a bit more clearly. Should be cleared up now.

 

The source quoted appears to contradict that last assertion.

You've mentioned this several times. Could you please define the level that would qualify as "excess"?

 

Why should I be required to define excess??????????? I don't beieve that ANY amount of CO2 is excess as the natural world is full of interactive fluxes which form a robust and stable equilibrium dominated by negative feedbacks!

It's the AGW alarmists that believe in the idea of 'excess' CO2; YOUR SIDE! All the naturally occurring CO2 is OK, even if its 10X, 100X or 1000X anthropogenic CO2. But anthropogenic CO2; no sir! Now THAT'S BAD CO2!!

YOU define excess!

Jimbo

 

Well, the reason I asked is because it is a claim you have made several times, so I thought perhaps you had a way of defining what you meant by your claim.

If you don't believe any amount is "excess", why consistently claim that "excess CO2 precipitates out of seawater as calcium carbonate"?

I assumed you had a specific level of CO2 in mind, and that you could say what level that was. The reason it interests me is because I'd like to know if it is a level that is actually relevant to climate change discussions, or if it's a level that is technically correct in chemical terms but not relevant to this thread. Without knowing what level you have in mind, it's impossible to tell.

 

By the way, regarding the old 750 page thread: just to make it get-throughable in a reasonable timeframe, I've had to temporarily put several posters on my ignore list (just the ones who don't seem to ever post anything useful to that discussion) and I've also decided to only concentrate on page 300 and up. The earlier stuff is probably mostly out of date by now anyway. Might truncate at 700 too, since apparently it descended into a total bunfight at the end. Given the huge amount of fluff in that thread, some rationalisation is necessary.

 

Ok, then define 'excess' as any amount added in excess of the present equilibrium state. The alarmist think this 'extra' CO2 just sits there because of the fabled residence time of 50-200 years according to IPCC, while the realists know that it goes away quickly according to the proven residence time of ~5 years.

Jimbo

 

Hang on a minute. I just started thinking a bit more about CaCO₃. I vaguely remembered that it was soluble in weakly acidic solutions (it's been a while since high school chemistry) so I did some quick checking.

Ok, question arises: if calcium carbonate forms a stable calcium bicarbonate solution with water that has a high CO₂ content, exactly how would "excess CO2 precipitate out of seawater as calcium carbonate"?

ETA: It seems far more likely that calicum carbonate precipitation would be dependent on low CO2 concentrations.

 

Ok, if I take that definition, what it implies is that it's impossible for the ocean pH to change due to CO2, because any additonal CO2 will drop out as CaCO3.

But that's not the case, because we know from measurements that adding CO2 to the ocean does in fact reduce the pH.