Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Give they all of your money.

For those opposed to carbon taxes, I will pay yours on the condition that you confine all of your fossil fuel emissions to your home and vehicles.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For those opposed to carbon taxes, I will pay yours on the condition that you confine all of your fossil fuel emissions to your home and vehicles.

Jack you know that is just idle chatter knowing my footprint. You know 99% of my emissions are due to the Mexican food. And not confined to carbon dioxide.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Forget about it.....
During the PETM, the global mean temperature seems to have risen by as much as 5-8 °C (9-14 °F) to an average temperature as high as 23 °C (73 °F), in contrast to the global average temperature of today at just under 15 °C (60 °F). Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle, while much of the continental United States had a sub-tropical environment.[5]



Sounds good to me, what you worried about?

Those who want such high levels of CO2 seem to be trying to recreate an environment suited their species, not mine. Even the PETM resulted in a die-off of their species.

(Richard) Zeebe says the two main conclusions are that ocean acidification will be more severe this time around, and that existing ecosystems may be hit harder because of the higher rate of carbon release.

Atmosphere Absorbing CO2 Faster Than PETM, When Dinosaurs Perished
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/22...2-faster-petm/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack you know that is just idle chatter knowing my footprint. You know 99% of my emissions are due to the Mexican food. And not confined to carbon dioxide.

When the methane tax is introduced I will also pay yours on the same conditions.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

I never believed you were purely self-interested or acting dishonorably, only extremely biased on account of your political partisanship (which you repeatedly make all too clear). This is what makes your posts suspect for many readers (or not), not whether the articles themselves amount to unjustified alarmism (or not). Not that most of us don't suffer from bias these days, it's just that some can discount it enough to present their positions with more objectivity, and therefore more credibility. But that requires at least some understanding of where the other side is coming from. Your approach to your opposition only serves to detract from your message, even though you may not understand that.

In an area of science that is itself unsettled, and of course so politicized, if people can't figure it out for themselves (few can) they'll naturally gravitate towards the positions of other like-minded people that they trust. That's why the credibility of the people communicating the science (and resulting policies) generally trumps (sorry) the science itself. It's just the way it is, and so there's no need to take responses (or non-responses) to your articles so personally.

You always find a way to weasel out of dealing with the science you hope is incorrect. That is why you are a denier, not a skeptic.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

if not for the homo sapiens starting to clear large tracts of land for farming about 5k years ago yes .

The upticks correspond to the Industrial Revolution, not the development of agrarian society.

[stevensuf]

So if global warming caused by co2 is real, the world turns into lush tropical jungles and lovely Forrest as far as the poles, if it is false then we get glaciers and 3-5kms of ice over a high percentage of the northern hemisphere and a small area of warm land near the equator and lots of dry tundra and deserts.


Well i am all for global warming,it can only be a good thing, lets petition to stop the ice age now!



What do we want?
More co2 ,



when do we want it?

now!

[stevensuf]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2947878]Those who want such high levels of CO2 seem to be trying to recreate an environment suited their species, not mine. Even the PETM resulted in a die-off of their species.



Erm Mammals, especially primates came into existence during the PETM, You owe your existence to it, so unless your species is not human? I leave you to figure out the rest.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Mmmm, no, this time he's been lying. Here's the post with the doctored graph he claimes he didn't post.

You lost me. One set of graphs is "official;" the other is the same but without the official adjustments. The core of the dispute is an old one -- over the adjustments. Not sure about the lying accusations. The only thing I am sure about is that it's not like you to miss an opportunity to and discredit a person when you can't discredit their ideas & opinions. So you're hardly trustworthy.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Notably, [the carbon cycle illustration] shows only one (one-way) arrow for fossil fuels, thereby reflecting that it's been sequestered for 1000s of years and therefore throws the natural carbon cycle off from the balance it enjoyed prior to the mass consumption/emissions of oil & gas (or so the theory goes).

It's MILLIONS of years of sequestration. Also, consuming fossil fuels is taking carbon accumulated over many thousands of years, and releasing it in 10s of years. Nothing natural about this.

So what about, as Reef raised in the last thread, all the additional people and its associated land development, livestock, etc. that have accompanied this mass burning of fossil fuels? Would not these non-fossil fuel sources of carbon also be part of the added CO2 in the atmosphere that exceed the capacity of the natural sinks to absorb?

People, animals, crops, land... are part of the natural system which has previously been pretty much in balance. The same amount of carbon overall - some locked up in organisms, some in the atmosphere.

People, animals, plants - are all 'built' with carbon from the atmosphere, via plants and things that eat plants. They don't manufacture additional carbon, they all release (sooner or later) the carbon they consume, so how could they cause a significant CO2 increase just by existing?

Their activities! Agriculture, deforestation, burning wood... yes perhaps these could alter the balance between captured and atmospheric CO2, but again it's still the same amount of carbon in play, overall.

The big change was when we pulled carbon out of long-term storage in the form of fossil fuels and ADDED it to the atmosphere by burning it, that the substantial and rapid buildup of CO2 was possible. Carbon is being dumped into the previously balanced system.

And our destruction of carbon sinks must be a factor as well.

Anyway, let's treat them all as probable CO2 influencers:

• more people
• our agriculture
• our destruction of sinks
• our other activities
• our use of fossil fuels

Notice anything? All us. All of those are our actions, under our control. The 'A' in AGW. Nature isn't the problem.

What's the fastest way to slow or stop the CO2 buildup? Stop adding new carbon to the system. (this is a 'well, duh' moment, right?). Improved agricultural practices, restoring sinks, etc are also important, but for fastest results... STOP ADDING CO2.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You lost me. One set of graphs is "official;" the other is the same but without the official adjustments. The core of the dispute is an old one -- over the adjustments. Not sure about the lying accusations. The only thing I am sure about is that it's not like you to miss an opportunity to and discredit a person when you can't discredit their ideas & opinions. So you're hardly trustworthy.

N was lying later about what he was busted by J for posting. For a few pages.



For a guy wanting a productive discussion, it's interesting who you choose to defend and when...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

Except that July was the hottest month on record and that is for all months ever.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/world...ntl/index.html


And June was the hottest June ever.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/june-2019-...cord-for-globe


And we are on track for 2019 to be the second hottest year ever. 2016 was the hottest. 2017 and 2018 were just a bit cooler but now we are are getting hotter again. Oh dear.

From the article on July..

"July has rewritten climate history," the World Meteorological Organization warns

July broke the record by 0.04 degrees Celcius. Hey Jackdale, what are the error bars again? And what happened to 30 years a climate makes and everything else is simply weather. Shouldn't this be reported as a weather record?


One also has to question; Are 24 hour average temperatures for each included station used to calculate the hottest month ever or is it limited to the peak temperature for the day?




Oh dear, indeed.

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

As hard as I try, I can’t seem to get autocorrect to misspell words.

We all make mistakes including me but we don’t insult the intelligence of readers with excuses such as that.

I guess it was a given it would only be a matter of time before the spelling and grand-ma police appeared on the scene.

Originally Posted by dennismenace111

Past performance is no guarantee of future accuracy....Again, What if they are wrong? Is it worth the risk? Should we bury our heads in the sand and say it cant happen? Or should we assume it will and do everything we can now to prepare or correct the situation?

You wouldnt venture out on the ocean without preparing for disaster saying your boat wont ever sink... boats have been crossing the oceans for thousands of year without sinking. Designers said the Titanic was unsinkable.

But some are willing to say that the scientists are wrong... it cant happen or we cant prevent it.

Some will say that its big money scare tactics... well if you look closely, even bigger money from fossil fuel industry is saying its false science...

Nope. Nothing to do with "Big Oil". It's because a reasonable person can only be told the sky is falling so many times before BS is called. There's a story about some guy called Peter that involves a wolf. Doesn't seem to be on the bookshelf of most climate scientists whether they be real ones or self proclaimed ones.


Think of your car, in two ways. Firstly you drive it. You're the polluter. Not Big Oil. If you didn't burn it they couldn't supply it. Secondly, you don't spend the value of the car on a repair it might need. You progressively maintain it and spend money on repairs when it actually breaks.

Originally Posted by jackdale

You posted the ones on the right which look like the ones posted on Tony Heller's blog.

https://realclimatescience.com/rewri...ricas-history/

The links you posted are also identical to Tony's.

The ones on the left are from NASA.

Do you still stand by this claim?

It's my opinion that Tony Heller doesn't make stuff up. Regardless of the slandering he receives from the Inner Circle, the guy knows his stuff and has an impressive resume. He may cherry pick at times, but that's rampant on both sides. What he does do is use the historical record to demonstrate his points. If you want to accuse him of faking charts, you may also want to accuse him of faking historical documents and newspaper and magazine articles as well.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, it's recently become apparent that you don't actually understand a fundamental part of the science - the carbon cycle. How can you be a credible skeptic of a position you don't fully understand?

And of course the over-reliance on so many non-scientific modifiers to give the small amount of actual scientific skepticism more heft.


Just my opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by jackdale

A picture is worth a 1000 words. (I did include some words)



This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon atoms 'flow' between various 'reservoirs' in the Earth system. Reservoirs are shown as rectangular blocks; flows between reservoirs are indicated by arrows. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC). Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per year (GtC yr-1). Red arrows and numbers indicate flows and changes in reservoir sizes associated with human activities such as burning fossil fuel and land use changes. Black numbers and flow arrows indicate typical values prior to major human influence. The values for human influences represent the state of the carbon cycle in the mid-1990s (20 years later, human influences are higher).

https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/...e-diagram-ipcc

I'd suspect many of you that think you know how the carbon cycle works actually don't. That graph for example is meaningless, because the calculations to arrive at these very official looking numbers are non linear. You could calculate them a million times with slight changes to the parameters (because they are calculated using computer models, after all) and get a million different results.

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Forget about it.....
During the PETM, the global mean temperature seems to have risen by as much as 5-8 °C (9-14 °F) to an average temperature as high as 23 °C (73 °F), in contrast to the global average temperature of today at just under 15 °C (60 °F). Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle, while much of the continental United States had a sub-tropical environment.[5]



Sounds good to me, what you worried about?

Exactly. The King Canute brigade fail to realise the current climate of the Earth is the exception, not the rule. For the majority of the time complex life has existed on the planet, it has been considerably warmer; Palm trees at the poles and all that. They shouldn't fear, however, because the pyramids are older than the time left before we plunge headlong into another multi-thousands year glaciation. They should bask in the sun whilst the opportunity presents itself instead of panicking.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You lost me. One set of graphs is "official;" the other is the same but without the official adjustments. The core of the dispute is an old one -- over the adjustments. Not sure about the lying accusations. The only thing I am sure about is that it's not like you to miss an opportunity to and discredit a person when you can't discredit their ideas & opinions. So you're hardly trustworthy.

The lie is the source of the graphs he posted.

Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
jack the charts I posted are direct from NASA. I even provided the links to the NASA web pages for them.

Debunk NASA or debunk NASA your choice or just admit they changed the data .

Has nothing to do with tony Heller

Even though he is correct .

They are not from NASA, they are from Tony Heller's blog. https://realclimatescience.com/rewri...ricas-history/

At that point his credibility is highly suspect; to put it mildly.

[dennismenace111]

Originally Posted by newhaul

it sounds good to me but it ain't profitable so gotta fight it . Even when its not going to happen we are back to cool I f and yes we are still in an ice age ( an interglacial period)
it is getting colder and will continue to do so .

Even though we have just recorded the hottest July in history?

[Exile]

Responses in blue so as not to provide grounds for accusations of lying or dishonesty.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's my Readers' Digest attempt at the AGW proposition:
(numbered for your convenience)

The subject matter experts are pretty sure that about #1; established in 1959 (or earlier) that #2 occurs in a closed system like a greenhouse; that modern CO2 levels as described in #3 are correct but that the rest may require citations; that #4 could be an accurate statement; and that you're pulling #5 -- the crux of the entire discussion -- out of your a**.

When all put together, you've once again repeated what nobody disputed about the source and levels of human-added CO2, but then added in assumptions about warming which are well-documented in the mainstream body of science, but are just as incompatible with expert skeptic positions as they were the last time you made such assumptions. :

1. the pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been under 300 ppm for many, many thousands of years.
2. increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. We've acknowledged this since at least 1959 (Thanks Gord M), and probably earlier
3. the CO2 level has shot up to over 400 ppm and is projected to keep rising. This rise is unprecedented in speed and magnitude. There is no known "natural" phenomenon that has ever produced anything similar
4. the observed CO2 rise fits very well with our best estimates of fossil fuels consumed.
5. there is no satisfactory "natural" explanation for the warming we're experiencing, and likely to experience going forward

When you put this together, the logical result is that we've caused CO2 to build up, and that CO2 buildup is causing warming.

All the little disagreements and quibbles haven't dented any of the above points. There's no alternate explanation or hypothesis that comes anywhere near to adequately explaining the CO2 buildup or the observed warming, as well as AGW.

Your question...
...is moot! We got extra CO2, we got warming, nothing else yet comes close to explaining the warming as well as the hypothesis of AGW.

You're obviously so convinced you should go ahead and pitch it directly to some of the experts who don't buy it. Then maybe you & SailOar can save some time.

"Look out! that bus is going to run you over!"

"I dunno, I'm skeptical. Why can't you tell me how fast it's going and why you think it will hit me hard enough to be a problem? Moving out of the way is so haaaard. I'll just adapt to my injuries."

Righto. And there's no sense hesitating to jump off that building because the theory of gravity may be unsettled too. You sure you didn't finish "uni" in 2015?

Besides, it's just one of Reefie's Socratic brain-teasers. I'm pretty certain that the required work has been done, but he's so coy about what sort of proof he'd accept that we can't begin to try to find it.

First all the complements about his kids. Now he's being compared to Socrates. Me? Slighty above ignoramus, and even that was later retracted. How come Reefie gets all the love?

Well, it might come out in any ensuing discussion of the above.



Let me first ask - are you still happy with everything you posted re the carbon cycle? Anything you'd revisit or clarify with hindsight?

Waiting with anticipation for your expertise.