Ocean acidifcation .

[stevensuf]

Seriously, this increase in co2 if it delivers all this warming, will be great for the planet! During the petm, when temps were 5-8c higher and co2 double to triple what it is today, plants grew 2x faster, twice as much food, no deserts, no nasty icebergs or ice caps, lovely sailing up there, NW passage open all year round! So much more room for mankind to exist, think of all that extra real estate thats wasting away in frozen tundra.


The way i see it, if global warming from co2 is real, it will bring nothing but good for the planet in the long run. Some species will loose out, some will gain, same thing is going to happen in a much larger scale if it does nothing and we go back to a frozen earth.


So why all the doom n gloom? Its more an end of the world with 3km of ice than with palm trees, i think even Jackdale cant disagree with that one, nah he probably will.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Red arrows and numbers indicate flows and changes in reservoir sizes associated with human activities such as burning fossil fuel and land use changes.

Just takes some addition and subtraction.

The point being that it's all part of the added CO2 that cannot be absorbed and so winds up in the atmosphere.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

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.

Consider choosing another website for promoting your agenda. I fear us sailor types are too independent-minded for you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by dennismenace111

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

4th hottest according to every dataset except the era5. reanalysis which departs significantly from the rest .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Consider choosing another website for promoting your agenda. I fear us sailor types are too independent-minded for you.

"Independent" shouldn't be mistaken for "discerning".

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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.

Huh. Too deep for me. I always thought there was a bunch of other factors - countries, governments, companies, advertising, subsidies,and other such stuff in there as well.

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.

It's not the exact numbers, it's the concept. If you dig up and burn fossil fuels, you're adding CO2 to a system previously in balance.

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.

You assume the system (the planet, us) can successfully change and adapt in a time frame that's near instantaneous by planetary measure. Stuff's gonna break. And you discount the possibility that such a significant and unprecedented alteration won't throw things so far out of whack that the CO2 warming will overcome the existing cycles that would otherwise have produced cooling. Positive feedback and runaway heating, anyone?

[newhaul]

Do I need to repost all the links from old threads about how a slightly warmer atmosphere will almost double the co2 sequestration capability of the various forests around the planet. ..

Nature controls the temperature and our heater is cooling down ( the sun)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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.


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.

Forgot a few zeros on my sequestration reference did I? Good thing there's such quick expertise around here.

I specifically said non-fossil fuel derived carbon added by humans since the start of the industrial age. But I'm sure your additional lesson on carbon cycles generally was all for my benefit.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The point being that it's all part of the added CO2 that cannot be absorbed and so winds up in the atmosphere.

Look carefully at the diagram. Some excess ends up in the atmosphere, resulting in warming, some in the ocean, resulting in acidification or de-alkalinization () , some goes into sinks (soils, plants, etc.)

The system was balanced. A cursory look at the ice core data for the past 800,000 years makes that clear. It is no longer in balance and CO2 levels are increasing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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...

For a guy clearly not wanting a productive discussion but who prefers no discussion at all, your attacks about Newhaul are 100% about his opinions. I find that sort of schoolyard chicanery needlessly hostile, and so worth defending against.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Look carefully at the diagram. Some excess ends up in the atmosphere, resulting in warming, some in the ocean, resulting in acidification or de-alkalinization () , some goes into sinks (soils, plants, etc.)

The system was balanced. A cursory look at the ice core data for the past 800,000 years makes that clear. It is no longer in balance and CO2 levels are increasing.

and the ice cores are not as reliable as they want us to believe due to migration while still a snow pack prior to compaction into ice .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Do I need to repost all the links from old threads about how a slightly warmer atmosphere will almost double the co2 sequestration capability of the various forests around the planet. ..

Nature controls the temperature and our heater is cooling down ( the sun)

NO.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

Canada's forests are net CO2 sources and have been since 2001.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...removals/16552

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

and the ice cores are not as reliable as they want us to believe due to migration while still a snow pack prior to compaction into ice .

citation please.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

NO.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

Canada's forests are net CO2 sources and have been since 2001.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...removals/16552

I'm sure I can dig up the report about the increase in carbon uptake I tropical rainforest land that was naturally reclaimed by the jungle.

And there is this study that can be replicated around the world it is not just for the Alaskan forests

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...-forests-20407

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by dennismenace111

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

Even though the WMO also used the word "history" to re-declare that the sky is falling, that is actually incorrect. They also used the phrase "climate history" which is also incorrect.


A more correct description would be "The hottest July weather in the modern record". The technically correct description would be "The hottest average of peak temperatures in the modern weather record"