Ocean acidifcation .

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And it does nothing to prove (aside from misleading beat-up reporting being a thing) that climate change is hard on organisms. Especially those organisms that have been around for 455 000 000 years and that include shallow oceans and coastal shores as part of their habitat.

The climate is changing naturally, and life can adapt to it, by moving habitats for example. But normally climate is changing on a very long time scale. Now the pace is much faster. What this will do to the adaptability of animals and plants we can only guess at.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, the interval between the start & end dates if you'd like. But the start & end dates are necessarily dispositive. No matter, since there doesn't appear to be much controversy over my hypothetical upward trend line going back to the last glaciation.

So how about my question on variation -- since human-caused warming (according to many) became a factor? Where is it in the NOAA or Denison datasets for attributing sea level rise to AGW off Australia? Just use the NOAA data if it better suits. We don't need to continue bashing Fitzhenry.

The melting of ice sheets and glaciers contributes to sea level rise. The increased level of melting is due to AGW (see the BEST Study Berkeley Earth ). Were it not for AGW we would have continued to cool after the Holocene Optimum. That is the effect of Milankovtich cycles.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is what is the evidence says.

From newhaul's link



https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...16703705007556

funny I can't find any proof that any monitoring stations are in fact conducting the mass 47 test . Zero nada zilch

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The melting of ice sheets and glaciers contributes to sea level rise. The increased level of melting is due to AGW (see the BEST Study Berkeley Earth ). Were it not for AGW we would have continued to cool after the Holocene Optimum. That is the effect of Milankovtich cycles.

Wasn't asking for yet another recitation of your favored AGW theory & dataset which you believe supports it.

Your response to my query about how we distinguish between natural & human-caused sea level rise off Australia was to distinguish between trends & variations. You produced the NOAA graph recording sea levels over the past 170 years. It's a given that the graph shows an overall increasing trend. Now all you need to do is explain the second factor in which you claim the data will show the distinction between the pre & post-fossil fuel era, namely variation.

This isn't a quiz. If you're just repeating what you've read but don't know how to analyze it, then so be it. But let's not waste time going down rabbit holes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

funny I can't find any proof that any monitoring stations are in fact conducting the mass 47 test . Zero nada zilch

Funny you did not read the abstract that you posted.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by MartinR

Of course it does not. But the CO2 we exhale we remove from the system again by eating vegetables and meat.

Cars do not eat, at least not mine.

The specific question I asked was "Are you suggesting that exhaust emission CO2 behaves differently to breathed out CO2"

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is what is the evidence says.

From newhaul's link



https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...16703705007556

The specific question I asked was "Are you suggesting that exhaust emission CO2 behaves differently to breathed out CO2"


Be that as it may, you're youtube link assumes that carbon breathed out is balanced by carbon uptake through photosynthesis. But what if, for example, there were more people/animals and less plants? What happens to the natural cycle? Conversely if there were less people/animals and more plants, would said plants begin to photosynthesize exhaust CO2 (assuming they apparently don't at the moment)?



It's an interesting conundrum.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is what is the evidence says.

From newhaul's link

Quote:
In particular, the mass 47 anomaly (Δ47) can distinguish between CO2 produced by high temperature combustion processes vs. low temperature respiratory processes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...16703705007556

Originally Posted by jackdale

Because the the analysis of the increased CO2 points to the burning of fossil fuels.

I don't think Reef or myself were asking about the source of the additional CO2 that is building up in the atmosphere, but why non-fossil fuel sources of CO2 (more people breathing) wouldn't also be part of the portion that exceeds the capacity of the earth to absorb.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wasn't asking for yet another recitation of your favored AGW theory & dataset which you believe supports it.

Your response to my query about how we distinguish between natural & human-caused sea level rise off Australia was to distinguish between trends & variations. You produced the NOAA graph recording sea levels over the past 170 years. It's a given that the graph shows an overall increasing trend. Now all you need to do is explain the second factor in which you claim the data will show the distinction between the pre & post-fossil fuel era, namely variation.

This isn't a quiz. If you're just repeating what you've read but don't know how to analyze it, then so be it. But let's not waste time going down rabbit holes.

According to natural cycles we should be cooling after the Holocene Optimum, glaciers and ice sheets should be expanding, sea level should be going down. None of that is happening because human activities have overwhelmed natural forcing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The specific question I asked was "Are you suggesting that exhaust emission CO2 behaves differently to breathed out CO2"

They are both GHGs, one (respiration) is natural, one (burning fossil fuels) is anthropogenic.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The specific question I asked was "Are you suggesting that exhaust emission CO2 behaves differently to breathed out CO2"





The specific question I asked was "Are you suggesting that exhaust emission CO2 behaves differently to breathed out CO2"


Be that as it may, you're youtube link assumes that carbon breathed out is balanced by carbon uptake through photosynthesis. But what if, for example, there were more people/animals and less plants? What happens to the natural cycle? Conversely if there were less people/animals and more plants, would said plants begin to photosynthesize exhaust CO2 (assuming they apparently don't at the moment)?



It's an interesting conundrum.

And one which suggests there are sources other than fossil fuel emissions which may account for the added CO2.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't think Reef or myself were asking about the source of the additional CO2 that is building up in the atmosphere, but why non-fossil fuel sources of CO2 (more people breathing) wouldn't also be part of the portion that exceeds the capacity of the earth to absorb.

Human respiration is not using sequestered carbon to add to the CO2 levels.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And one which suggests there are sources other than fossil fuel emissions which may account for the added CO2.

Carbon isotope analysis says otherwise.

[Kenomac]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

According to natural cycles we should be cooling after the Holocene Optimum, glaciers and ice sheets should be expanding, sea level should be going down. None of that is happening because human activities have overwhelmed natural forcing.

I understand the gist of the mainstream theory as you've repeated it many, many times (as if it's the "only" theory). But you're obviously choosing not to answer my follow-up question, so I can only assume you are unable to analyze the NOAA dataset to uncover the variations which you claim would distinguish between natural & human-derived sea level rise off the coast of Australia. Either that or there is no appreciable variation to uncover, and therefore no data to support the assertions you're making above. It's all getting rather clear.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by MartinR

The climate is changing naturally, and life can adapt to it, by moving habitats for example. But normally climate is changing on a very long time scale. Now the pace is much faster. What this will do to the adaptability of animals and plants we can only guess at.

Cockroaches have survived every other extinction. They will likely survive the next one as well. Deep sea hydrothermal vent ecosystems will probably survive as well.