What Do We Think About Climate Change

Not difficult to find even worse . . . . . . .

If you don't have anything to say Hoyt, then don't.

Post like the above make you look sooo childish . . . . .

So if don't want to look like a complete fool, then don't do that.

Good Luck with your progress.

Cheers!
Angel

 

I'm not a compleat fool. Some parts are missing.

 

I know. You are trying to be serious. Again, we differ.

 

This is becoming a hostile climate. I think I'll hang out in Jokes for a while.

 

I still think its just a sad attempt to distract from the *** kicking the deniers were handed over the last ~7000 or so posts

thing is if they flood the thread with pages and pages of meaningless tripe then most casual readers will most likely just skip it

and since the page seems to be a oil and gas PR outlet for some posters then it stands to reason that these few posters would want to distract from the more irrefutable points they had completely wrong and simply put some space between the readers and the obvious

its a game Angelique
once you recognize that, its a lot easier to understand what is going on with all the inane posts

 

Yes, that's what this thread is about, AGW.

Yes, best thing to do if you can't keep up here. Please bring my regards to the good people of that thread.

Good Luck!
Angel

 

This is yet another tacit admission to the mechanism that Jeffrey Glassman and Tom Segalstad have asserted, which the warmers reject when it suits them, such as when it is shown that the operation of this chemical mechanism means the oceans cannot acidify. Carbonate rocks are the resting place of 'excess' CO2, not the liquid oceans. If the oceans become too saturated with CO2, more CO2 is precipitated out of solution as carbonate mineral. Carbonate rocks also supply the oceans with a buffering capacity which is, for all practical purposes, infinite. It is yet another robust equilibrium concentration. We see a lot of those in the natural world; an unstable equilibrium, such as the warmers assert WRT the climate, are almost NEVER seen in nature.

Jimbo

 

This is not quite it. Please keep in mind that the oceans are the real CO2 sink of merit, containing something like ~40 000 million tons of CO2 (as dissolved CO2). The atmospheric CO2 concentration is just one part of an equilibrium concentration that exists between the ocean and atmosphere. This is in turn dependent on temperature.

But there are other 'incidental' sources of atmospheric CO2, like terrestrial biotic processes, industrial emissions, volcanism, forest fires and the like. Whenever these emissions from whatever source enter the atmosphere, they DO NOT upset the equilibrium concentration between ocean and atmosphere. Instead the oceans quickly absorb ~98% (49/50ths) to re-establish the equilibrium concentration. This has a negligible effect on the concentration of both ocean and atmosphere as the oceans already contain a stupendously large amount of CO2; an extra giga ton here or there is lost in the noise.

The 'set point' for this equilibrium concentration is the temperature of the ocean, and mostly (but not exclusively) the sea surface temperature. If the sea surface temperature rises, then the solubility of CO2 in sea water changes and the ocean releases some of its enormous reservoir of CO2 to the atmosphere, re-establishing the equilibrium concentration. But the 'excess' CO2 from the incidental sources that enters the atmosphere is still over and above the equilibrium concentration, therefore it has the same fate as before; it is absorbed by the ocean. It's just that the 'set point' of the equilibrium concentration has changed because the ocean is warmer, which allows a higher concentration of CO2 to exist in the atmosphere than before. The absorption does not stop because the set point has moved.

Now can terrestrial,' incidental' sources of CO2 ever drive a change in atmospheric concentration such as has occurred over the last ~150 years? It is possible in theory, but because the equilibrium concentration has to be 'overcome' in order to accomplish this, the amount of CO2 that would need to be released to the atmosphere is completely unrealistic. In fact, it far exceeds all the CO2 that would be released if all the known fossil fuel reserves were all burned. Clearly we have not done that yet.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo,

I am continually amazed at how little you know about chemistry. An increase in solution-phase CO2 does not generally result in precipitation of carbonate. Quite the opposite in fact. Here is the relevant chemistry:

CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3

H2CO3 + CaCO3 --> Ca(HCO3)2

The compound CaCO3 is calcium carbonate and is relatively insoluble.

The compound Ca(HCO3)2 is calcium bicarbonate, which is relatively soluble.

To put this into other words, H2CO3 is carbonic acid, which reacts with carbonate to form bicarbonate. This chemistry converts the relatively insoluble material calcium carbonate into the relatively soluble material calcium bicarbonate.

Under certain extreme conditions there are other reactions that dominate, but under normal conditions the description above is what governs.

 

sorry Jim if you are not able to understand Allan's description but putting it in simpler terms the traditional form of co2 sequestering is being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which co2 is being released from the fossil fuels sink by human activity, so once again your argument is completely irrelevant.

basically it takes a long time to form carbonate rocks, certainly more than the few years of the industrial age, similarly the dramatic rise is co2 is simply to much for the natural systems to respond to and therefor we have a rise in co2 and its accompanying rise in temps.

exactly as the data shows now mater how much denial gets thrown around

whats interesting is that a lot of these natural interactions are simply being overrun by the rapid release of fossil fuel based co2 and are therefor irrelevant to the discussion.

the ocean PH is falling faster than the carbonate rocks can buffer it
the ocean co2 sink is becoming saturated faster than the natural chemical processes can compensate and the atmospheric co2 levels are rising faster than what natural processes can metabolize, in the end you have rising co2 across the board exactly as is observed in every singe data stream there is
and consequently as co2 is a green house gas we have an observed and measurable rise in temp that is struggling to keep up with the rise in co2
precisely as the graph I last presented suggests

please note the implied temp increase that would accompany our present level of co2 under the normal time scale of co2 release, but given our accelerated release time temp has simply yet to catch up



interesting that you change the goal posts again but once again
no one is fooled

cheers
B

 

We have not posted a single graph that is unscientifically pasted together from disparate data sources, pretending that the data was acquired by the same methods, or calibrated together or anything else that would justify this sort of scientific malpractice, bordering on fraud.

Yet YOU have posted such graphs over and over; indeed they have become CORNERSTONES of the AGW fraud.

Vostok ice core data is slapped together with measured CO2 data from recent atmospheric samples, as if these two have been calibrated together or have similar resolution and granularity! Why not at least use all of the direct CO2 measurements that we have, instead of relying on proxies for periods for which we also have direct measurements? You don't think proxies and ice cores are more accurate than direct measurements, even those taken 150 years ago, do you? Why not at least LOOK at the measurements and use them to calibrate the proxies? What are the warmers afraid of?


Ice core measurements from Siple are 'cut and pasted' and moved 70 years forward so the match atmospheric measurement taken at Moana Lau, with no scientific justification! Why did they do this? Maybe to hide the multi-decadal spike in CO2 concentration that occurred during the 'lost' years!

Jimbo

 

There you go, posting that fraud of a graph again! It's a 'cut and paste' of two WILDLY disparate data sets; Vostok ice cores and recent direct measurements. Tell everyone what the resolution of the Vostok data is, Wonder B. Then tell us all what the resolution of the direct measurements is. What the hell kind of shlock scientists are you anyway, that you would support this scientifically unsupportable cut and paste fraud?

Jimbo

 

oh that was rich
ok that graph is a construct professional climate scientists there Jim
nothing fraudulent about it
if you want to complain about it being of a variety of resolutions then you will have to find a common denominator in all your subsequent data and reconstruct all graphs you present
or is it that maybe you are barking up an empty tree again

of course various data sets are of various resolutions and of course we are going to compare them on similar time frames
its called corroboration

two data sets from varying methods are combined to verify one another

basically you do not understand the scientific process Jim or you would not be complaining about the time scales of the various measurement techniques

feel free to present examples and sources of my fraudulent graphs Jim
somehow I think you will just continue making these wildly erroneous statements in some sad attempt at bluff and bluster rather than actually prove a single one to have been inaccurate

please please please present your best argument cause I think we both know you are all show and no go on these ridiculous accusations

 

just so everyone can see that I did present this completely within the context of the literature within which it is found


and in case you missed my post from so long ago I will reprint it for you

Sorry to be such a thorn in your side Jim but this tact isn't going to work out to well either.

simple reality is temp and co2 go hand in hand, so if you raise one you raise the other, just as our esteemed friends over at Realclimate have pointed out in numerous papers and publications

cheers
B

 

Don't you mean like this?