Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My concern with this - man is being blamed for something that might not be our fault. It would be very difficult for increased atmospheric CO2 (which is more than likely caused by man) to be the cause of increased oceanic CO2, based on very basic high school chemistry.
Sorry, but you'll need to show your work on this.
Quote:
Thus, this one might not be on us.
Thus, there are other factors at play for which we are ignorant.
Thus, we don't know it all, the science is far from settled, and we need to dial down the catastrophic, doomsday, man-kills-everything-he-touches rhetoric.
Admittedly, there has been some flawed studies in AGW. But I would point out that in the field of genetics there has been research presented on cloning that has been proven to be fraudulent - but those instances of fraud don't disprove cloning.
Yes, there have been inaccurate climate change models which provide false projections, but that doesn't disprove AGW. The carbon dioxide levels are still increasing and the global average temperature is still rising.
Quote:
The funny thing is, the ocean's pH has been all over that scale many times over the course of the globe's existence. and organisms still existed there. They either adapted to the new conditions (hey look - I teach evolution!!!) or they died out and left the environment ripe for new organisms to flourish and expand.
And yes, I know... I'm still gonna hear from one or two of you stating something concerning "rate-of-change". Can you definitively tell me that you know for certain that this rate of change has never, ever occurred in the history of the planet?
I'd point out that there have been six mass extinctions in the history of the planet. At least one was caused by an extreme rate of change (Mass Extinction).
Look, if rate of change didn't ever matter, Dale Earnhardt would still be alive.
To be perfectly honest, you keep bringing up Henry's Law because - and I hope this doesn't offend you - because it's the one scientific law that's easily understandable & explainable and that could be applied to the topic at hand. IOW, you want to make it fit.
But...
The increase in the partial pressure of a gas that makes up 0.039% of our atmosphere is not going to be nowhere near enough to overcome the increasing temps of the ocean. And there are other factors at work as well. One being (and I've repeated this) that Henry's law with a temperature variable only works for closed systems, which of course the ocean is not. Another is agitation. The less agitation of a liquid, the more soluble the gas is. Have you seen the ocean surface? The constant movement of the ocean works against the solubilities of the increased partial pressures above it.
But it isn't just one gas. It's methane, SOX, and NOX as well. While CO2 gets talked about most, most of the other largest polluters don't have regulations that limit SOX and NOX (and particulate matter) which are indirect greenhouse gases and water soluble and acidic.
The "0.039%" of the atmosphere response is old. Ingest that percentage of your body weight in cyanide and let me know about feedback loops.
Quote:
As for the source of the ocean's CO2, I'm not so arrogant enough to admit that there are other unseen factors at play that scientists simply haven't discovered. I bring up the ocean floor vents. You state there aren't enough of them. But can you prove this? DO we have 100% of the ocean floors mapped? DO we know of every single vent on the planet? And do we even know all of the other potential sources of oceanic CO2?
This is my premise: Admitting that we don't know it all, but we continue to study because that's what we do. But to politically hijack a scientific topic, and abuse it as a scare tactic when it's still an early science is wrong.
There is a ton of stuff we don't know but that can't stop of us from researching today. However, environmental issues are political in nature since legislation is needed to enforce rules. Taking meaningful steps toward emission reductions will require political will.
I do agree that there is too much alarmism and I believe that has hurt meaningful progress.
Again, so what? We either adapt or die. We have the smarts to do so, but instead, we keep harping on and studying man's fallibility. How about we actually study ways for us to adapt to the changes instead?
That's pretty easy to say when you're not actually having to adapt or die.
But it isn't just one gas. It's methane, SOX, and NOX as well. While CO2 gets talked about most, most of the other largest polluters don't have regulations that limit SOX and NOX (and particulate matter) which are indirect greenhouse gases and water soluble and acidic.
The "0.039%" of the atmosphere response is old. Ingest that percentage of your body weight in cyanide and let me know about feedback loops.
There is a ton of stuff we don't know but that can't stop of us from researching today. However, environmental issues are political in nature since legislation is needed to enforce rules. Taking meaningful steps toward emission reductions will require political will.
I do agree that there is too much alarmism and I believe that has hurt meaningful progress.
And that statement is getting very old, and very pointless, as one of these compounds is necessary for life on earth and the other isn't. But you already know this.
The %-age is important in describing the math concerning Henry's law, so it must be a part of the discussion.
That's pretty easy to say when you're not actually having to adapt or die.
Says who?
And what does it matter whether it's me or my great-grandchildren that must adapt? I'm not talking about growing gills or such. I'm referring to humanity's drive to adapt. We are constantly doing this anyway - very slowly - physiologically as well as intellectually. What difference does it make which generation?
And this is the very nature of life anyway. We live, we die. We adapt over time...and die. Or we don't and still die. Been going on for a few billion years. What's so different about now? Or is humanity special to the universe?
And that statement is getting very old, and very pointless, as one of these compounds is necessary for life on earth and the other isn't. But you already know this.
Well the point is to illustrate feedback loops, but you can switch cyanide with arsenic (which is required from normal cellular in very minuscule amount) and the point is even more valid.
Quote:
The %-age is important in describing the math concerning Henry's law, so it must be a part of the discussion.
And what does it matter whether it's me or my great-grandchildren that must adapt? I'm not talking about growing gills or such. I'm referring to humanity's drive to adapt. We are constantly doing this anyway - very slowly - physiologically as well as intellectually. What difference does it make which generation?
Well duh, we aren't talking about adapting physiologically but technologically.
Quote:
And this is the very nature of life anyway. We live, we die. We adapt over time...and die. Or we don't and still die. Been going on for a few billion years. What's so different about now? Or is humanity special to the universe?
Well whats stopping you from continuing to live?
The difference now is the continuance of life as we know it from a growing planet. We will probably ultimately fail but history has shown that we will go for it.
Often the AGW crowd covers themselves on the veil of "science" claiming that CO2 is causing the planet to warm. However, a little knowledge of how and where CO2 absorbs infared energy shows how this contention is improbable.
1. CO2 makes up .04 % of the atmosphere
2. Infared light occurs over about 100 microns wavelength band.
3. CO2 absorbs infared at 15 microns, with a width of 2 microns.
4. Water vapor absorbs IR radiation over a width of 60 microns
6. Not all infared radiation that contacts compounds (like CO2) is re-emitted as heat.
7. Heat that is emitted is directed in all directions, not just back to the earth.
8. The atmosphere, given most absorbtion occurs at 10m, could withstand a 12X increase in CO2 without creating "saturation".
9. Global temps have increased 1 degree since 1850, with the majority of the increase occurring before 1940.
Understand CO2 and the science and one comes to realize how improbable the concept of AGW can be.
Curious why the majority of the science community (eg;NOAA and NASA etc) say the globe is warming in an abnormal way and its due to mans influence and you think the claims are all lies and deceit yet one scientist comes out with his own ideas against the science community and you cling to his ideas as gospel rather than believe what the bulk of the entire science community is claiming .Think i'll stick with =Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
and= https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...al-warming.php
Yawn...let those wringing their hands over climate change get back to the real science community when we get anywhere near normal temperature, much less the normal hight temperatures in earth's history. (The real history where man is barely a blip on the screen...)
An interesting aside to this conversation is the volcanic supper eruption that happened 70,000 years ago. When you run that eruption through our current models you get the environment cooling off then warming back up far sooner than actually happened, This argues that the models are over emphasizing green house gases contribution to warming and underestimating albedo feed back.
Just something to think about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.Think i'll stick with =