Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Amazing...

There is very good agreement in the *science* world about the history of CO2 over the last 800k years. There is good agreement that the co2 has increased from 280 to 440 and is headed to doubling to 560 in the next 30-50 years. When discussing the *change* in an amount is usually discussed as a ratio of the original to the new amount so 280/440 yields a ratio in percent of 40% *change*. Newhaul is trying to confuse the issue by doing a subtraction instead. We are at 40% now but as I opined in an earlier post, even if we hit the brakes hard now we will probably still double the co2 from pre-industrial levels.

except the plants tell a different story. According to them we were about 395ppm at the turn of the 20th century ( approx 1900) the levels decreased in till the early 1950's and started their climb back up to where they are today ( which is still just barely above plant starvationlevel of about 180ppm)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Amazing...

There is very good agreement in the *science* world about the history of CO2 over the last 800k years. There is good agreement that the co2 has increased from 280 to 440 and is headed to doubling to 560 in the next 30-50 years. When discussing the *change* in an amount is usually discussed as a ratio of the original to the new amount so 280/440 yields a ratio in percent of 40% *change*. Newhaul is trying to confuse the issue by doing a subtraction instead. We are at 40% now but as I opined in an earlier post, even if we hit the brakes hard now we will probably still double the co2 from pre-industrial levels.

I'm not seeing any confusion. Not in the science anyway. The only thing I see as "amazing" is manipulation of basic information by biased non-scientists. What everyone appears to agree on (more or less) is that there has been an approx. 40% (avg.) increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 that the science mostly attributes to human causes, but this 40% amounts to an increase of an essential but also minuscule amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere.

Why is there such reluctance to just play it straight on matters which are largely agreed upon? For example, your own insistence on extrapolating the long known relationship between CO2 & warming into a direct cause & effect between the increased CO2 and the actual amount of the recorded warming trend? If either of these issues was as certain as you & L-E represent then, yes, the additional CO2 would be as consequential as Gord's description of the sensitivities of potassium levels in the human body. But according to the many skeptics within the science, the earth is not believed to be as sensitive to CO2 as the human body is to potassium, so it's a false analogy. In short, the consequences of aberrant levels of potassium in the human body is proven and beyond dispute; the CO2-warming relationship is not. So the analogy only works if your conclusion about the your science is preordained, not if you're being objective.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Of frustration or boredom.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I honestly think something this important shouldn't be a source of amusement, nor is there anything very noble in trolling, or not debating it in good faith.

There is something compelling in the mechanics of debate, but not many payoffs here. More like whack-a-mole.

Maybe it's the same sort of fun as being hit with a hammer. Feels so good when it stops.

So by your logic CF'ers agreeing with the many physicists, astrophysicists, geophysicists, physical geographers, and even a few climate scientists who are skeptical about certain aspects of "the" science are trolls or not debating in good faith? That's just another way of insulting people who don't share your opinions. Aren't you one of those "Progressives" who live amongst the angels, where tolerance reigns supreme?

Maybe you should consult with Third Day about installing a freezer on your boat? You sound like you could use some ice cream.

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here’s a different analogy:
Potassium has several important functions in the body. It is essential for the normal functioning of the muscles, heart, and nerves.
The normal potassium level in the blood is 3.5-5.0 per liter (mmol/L or mEq/L). A potassium level that is too high (hyperkalemia) or too low (hypokalemia) [etc etc unrelated nonsense]

.

What nonsense, Gord please! Don't copy and paste what you don't understand.
You can not honestly believe that you can compare the planet to a mammal. Do you believe in gaia?

1000 pp million of Co2 in an enclosure is perfectly safe and to endanger life it needs to be 50,000 ppm.
The atmosphere is 400 ppm. A doubling of this amount to 800 ppm will do buggerall to mammals yet will represent a great improvement for green plants.

Not that 800 ppm will be reached anytime soon.

Yet this is a moot point since when no one is debating that CO2 levels can be dangerous to human as it is or if we triple it, the flaw in this debate is that double CO2 equates to double the greenhouse effect. No such thing is true, even when it is a good tool to scare school kids whitless.

To compare the above to toxin levels in the bloodstream or the effect of minerals in our organism is disingenuous and can only come from complete ignorance of the topic at hand.

And the best part is this: With scaremongering of doubling of CO2 nex year or perhaps the year after ... can someone explain to me, how are humans to achieve such doubling when from 100% of CO2, human contribute 3.4% ... ?????

I am still waiting for an answer to this riddle: If humans all go to live on mars, that is no human contribution to CO2 ... By how much is the temperature of the planet going to drop?

My answer is ZERO

Human stupidity has no limits. If we can believe that building billion dollar cathedrals will make God happy we can believe that by driving electric cars and switching the lights off at earth day will reduce the temperature of the palnet.

And who says we want the temperature to reduce? Who decided why and by how much?

Please!!!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe you should consult with Third Day about installing a freezer on your boat? You sound like you could use some ice cream.

one of Rich's systems would serve as a whole cabin air conditioner .
The only icebox on his boat is the one he carries onboard with him .


That being said that sandpaper looks like it would be a blast to sail in light to moderate winds on a bay or lake .

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Exile

So by your logic CF'ers agreeing with the many physicists, astrophysicists, geophysicists, physical geographers, and even a few climate scientists who are skeptical about certain aspects of "the" science are trolls or not debating in good faith? That's just another way of insulting people who don't share your opinions. Aren't you one of those "Progressives" who live amongst the angels, where tolerance reigns supreme?

Maybe you should consult with Third Day about installing a freezer on your boat? You sound like you could use some ice cream.

LF's boat (Sand Piper 565) isn't big enough for a freezer AND a human.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not seeing any confusion. Not in the science anyway. The only thing I see as "amazing" is manipulation of basic information by biased non-scientists. What everyone appears to agree on (more or less) is that there has been an approx. 40% (avg.) increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 that the science mostly attributes to human causes, but this 40% amounts to an increase of an essential but also minuscule amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere.

Mostly on-point. It's over 40% and still increasing, current findings suggest that this increase is due to human activity - give or take as-yet-unidentified and unprecedented other causes.


Increasing something by 40% to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years... calling this minuscule is being deliberately misleading.

Why is there such reluctance to just play it straight on matters which are largely agreed upon?

You tell us...-cough-"minuscule"-cough-

... according to the many skeptics within the science, the earth is not believed to be as sensitive to CO2 as the human body is to potassium, so it's a false analogy.

Gord wasn't claiming that. Reefie threw in that red herring about human sensitivity to CO2, which wasn't the point being made.

Yes the correlation between increased CO2 and warming hasn't been proven beyond all doubt in Reefie's back shed. Nor has it been proven with certainty that the planet won't be able to return to some equilibrium at some future point. But it's still the best hypothesis so far, there is no alternative hypothesis that comes close. Observable change is happening that follows the hypothesis. In the next few years we will see

• warming?
• cooling?
• no significant change?

Place your bets...

Speaking of place your bets... (also fits with "follow the money")

btw, what ever happened to the 999 other good reasons for reducing dependence on fossil fuels?

So - back atcha: Why is there such reluctance to just play it straight on matters which are largely agreed upon?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Marc1

What nonsense, Gord please! Don't copy and paste what you don't understand.

1000 pp million of Co2 in an enclosure is perfectly safe and to endanger life it needs to be 50,000 ppm.
The atmosphere is 400 ppm. A doubling of this amount to 800 ppm will do buggerall to mammals yet will represent a great improvement for green plants.

Not that 800 ppm will be reached anytime soon.

Yet this is a moot point since when no one is debating that CO2 levels can be dangerous to human as it is or if we triple it, the flaw in this debate is that double CO2 equates to double the greenhouse effect. No such thing is true, even when it is a good tool to scare school kids whitless.

To compare the above to toxin levels in the bloodstream or the effect of minerals in our organism is disingenuous and can only come from complete ignorance of the topic at hand.

wait this thread is supposed to be about co2 going into the oceans ( by whatever means natural as well as man caused sources.)
wouldn't a warming ocean outlaws co2 to the atmosphere which would lead it further to the base side of the ph scale?
Colder water holds more co2 .
So wouldn't their " warming " cause the co2 ppm in sea water to go down ? Which would raise the co2 in the atmosphere correct?
Please explain how the inverse could be happening.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So by your logic CF'ers agreeing with the many physicists, astrophysicists, geophysicists, physical geographers, and even a few climate scientists who are skeptical about certain aspects of "the" science are trolls or not debating in good faith? That's just another way of insulting people who don't share your opinions. Aren't you one of those "Progressives" who live amongst the angels, where tolerance reigns supreme?

Maybe you should consult with Third Day about installing a freezer on your boat? You sound like you could use some ice cream.

Not what I said, but you too have as much right as any other poster here to argue like a 10 yr old on occasion.


And right on cue...

Originally Posted by senormechanico

LF's boat (Sand Piper 565) isn't big enough for a freezer AND a human.

Two people and one or two coolers, dependent on duration.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

btw, what ever happened to the 999 other good reasons for reducing dependence on fossil fuels?




So - back atcha: Why is there such reluctance to just play it straight on matters which are largely agreed upon?

there are plenty of good reasons to reduce dependence on ancient plants . Some day it will become cost prohibitive to extract .

Personally I have reduced my dependence to less than 20 gallons of diesel ( depending on heating needs in winter) and 5 to 7 gallons of propane per year for purely personal economic reasons .

There are so many ways that we could convert the electrical power industry and maintaining reliability. Except most governments and most eco freaks don't want it to happen .

As to playing it straight well eliminate the msm and the politics . Allow just the pure science and you will see that things aren't as dire as anyone claims.

Not to mention we are actually in the first few years of a long term cooling phase. ( according to several well respected astrophysicists )

[Reefmagnet]

Who hasn't seen steam trains and steam ships from a century or more ago spewing out thick plumes of black smoke and thought to themselves "How inefficient is that?". Even during the second world war, trains and ships remained powered by steam with the main advance in technology being the replacement of coal with oil to power the burners for the boilers.


We should allow history to be the teacher. If Moore's law is anything to go by, in another century fossil fuels will, with almost no doubt imo, be consigned to history for the most part. Which makes it just as foolish to try and jump the gun on technology today as it would have been for the people of 1919 to jump the gun on steam power. And don't kid yourself. To replace fossil fuels to the extent decried by some is well and truly jumping the gun. In fact it's probably more akin to jumping the shark. Imagine, if you will, the Allied nations switching from steam power to an undeveloped technology in 1919 and the consequences of how that would have played out 20 years later.

And @LE. Pointing out that CO2 isn't even in the town, let alone the ball park, of toxicity at current atmospheric levels isn't exactly a red herring in the context of the analogy provided.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

We should allow history to be the teacher. If Moore's law is anything to go by, in another century fossil fuels will, with almost no doubt imo, be consigned to history for the most part. Which makes it just as foolish to try and jump the gun on technology today as it would have been for the people of 1919 to jump the gun on steam power. And don't kid yourself. To replace fossil fuels to the extent decried by some is well and truly jumping the gun. In fact it's probably more akin to jumping the shark.

History can only teach about what has happened before. Have we ever before had such a clear picture (from the moon, even) about just how finite our planet is? It doesn't have unlimited carrying capacity. Many of the resources we depend upon are not renewable, and we can easily make reasonable projections about when they will run out.Not least - fossil fuels. Oh, and by the way, the atmosphere does not have unlimited capacity to absorb all the previously-sequestered carbon we're dumping into it, and it seems to be messing with the thermostat.

Why are you against recognizing these limitations, planning to make current non-renewables last as long as possible, and encouraging the development of new energy technology?

... jump-the-gun? Do you really think that fossil fuel use will be cut off before viable alternatives are ready? Have you observed what moves and plans that most auto companies are making?

Of course, back on history... the Mayans, Olmec, Easter-Islanders and Sumerians might have something to teach us about unmanaged consumption and long-term survival.

(And Moore's law is about done, btw)

Imagine, if you will, the Allied nations switching from steam power to an undeveloped technology in 1919 and the consequences of how that would have played out 20 years later.

Well, hard as I try, I can't imagine one tank, truck or plane that was steam powered in WW II. Also, diesels were commercially viable technology in the '20s (eg locomotives). Didn't they first use nuclear energy around 1945?

And @LE. Pointing out that CO2 isn't even in the town, let alone the ball park, of toxicity at current atmospheric levels isn't exactly a red herring in the context of the analogy provided.

Gord's analogy wasn't about human toxicity, it was an extreme but relevant example where things in "small" amounts matter and that "small" changes can have big effects.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not seeing any confusion. Not in the science anyway. The only thing I see as "amazing" is manipulation of basic information by biased non-scientists. What everyone appears to agree on (more or less) is that there has been an approx. 40% (avg.) increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 that the science mostly attributes to human causes, but this 40% amounts to an increase of an essential but also minuscule amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere.



Why is there such reluctance to just play it straight on matters which are largely agreed upon? For example, your own insistence on extrapolating the long known relationship between CO2 & warming into a direct cause & effect between the increased CO2 and the actual amount of the recorded warming trend? If either of these issues was as certain as you & L-E represent then, yes, the additional CO2 would be as consequential as Gord's description of the sensitivities of potassium levels in the human body. But according to the many skeptics within the science, the earth is not believed to be as sensitive to CO2 as the human body is to potassium, so it's a false analogy. In short, the consequences of aberrant levels of potassium in the human body is proven and beyond dispute; the CO2-warming relationship is not. So the analogy only works if your conclusion about the your science is preordained, not if you're being objective.

I thought you read and understood the paper I suggested you read [emoji30].

When you say minuscule amount in the atmosphere, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental science. The other 99.96% doesn’t matter. It is transparent to infrared radiated from the earth.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

one of Rich's systems would serve as a whole cabin air conditioner .
The only icebox on his boat is the one he carries onboard with him .


That being said that sandpaper looks like it would be a blast to sail in light to moderate winds on a bay or lake .

I certainly have no problem with L-E's boat, or anyone else's for that matter. Heck, I don't even care what type of keel it's got, how many hulls, or what sort of anchor is aboard! I only wish he spent more time on it as sailing one's own boat -- no matter the size, venue, or conditions -- tends to put one in the moment as opposed to worrying about speculative future events over which one has no control. Despite the control one might believe he has that is . . . .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I thought you read and understood the paper I suggested you read [emoji30].

When you say minuscule amount in the atmosphere, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental science. The other 99.96% doesn’t matter. It is transparent to infrared radiated from the earth.

actually considering its all dependant on the sun none of it really matters in till it actually gets to lethal percentages . Which it won't get to till about a week before the sun cooks the atmosphere off the earth in an out 4 billion years .