"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: M Purcell on 18 Jul 2010 15:38 On Jul 18, 12:11 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 11:39 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 10:23 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:38:50 -0700, M Purcell wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 10:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:22:37 -0700, hersheyh wrote: > > > >> > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > >> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > >> >> >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > >> >> > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > >> >> Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that > > > >> >> shows that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state > > > >> >> and want to suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have > > > >> >> a low level of intelligence. > > > > >> >> < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in > > > >> >> arguing why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) > > > >> >> authorities.> > > > > >> >> First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science.. > > > >> >> Science is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept > > > >> >> or reject the hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a > > > >> >> continuous process. A well known example is classical mechanics; it > > > >> >> was tested and proven to be a useful theory up until the beginning > > > >> >> of the 20th century, when it began to fail. Then new theories, like > > > >> >> QM and SR, were developed to predict where CM failed. > > > > >> >> AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s > > > >> >> failed to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, > > > >> >> that is called "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed > > > >> >> on the stronger correlation between solar cycle and climate change > > > >> >> and found the physical mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. > > > >> >> His theory not only explains climate change for the last 4 billion > > > >> >> years, but the hemispherical effects of climate change, the solar > > > >> >> correlation, and the observed climate change on other planets that > > > >> >> AGW fails to predict. The increase in CO2 is then explained by > > > >> >> simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less CO2 and dissolves more > > > >> >> carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, of warming. At > > > >> >> this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > >> > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > >> > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > >> > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > >> > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > >> > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > >> > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to > > > >> > the idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by > > > >> > the oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of > > > >> > uptake and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the > > > >> > sink for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced > > > >> > CO2, but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in > > > >> > atmospheric CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic > > > >> > CO2 produced during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to > > > >> > go somewhere. Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is > > > >> > it? > > > > >> Equilibrium exists because the chemical reaction goes both ways, and > > > >> when the two reaction rates are equal, the equilibrium is reached. > > > > >> If you add 5.5 GtC to the atmosphere/ocean/Carbonate rock/vegetation > > > >> system, most of it will end up in the oceans or vegetation, and very > > > >> little will remain in the atmosphere. > > > > >> But the only thing that can change the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere > > > >> to CO2 in the ocean, or CO2 in the ocean to CO2 in carbonate rocks, is > > > >> a temperature increase. If there is no temperature increase, then the > > > >> rations will remain the same. This is simple freshmen chemistry. > > > > >> So adding 5.5 GtC to the entire SYSTEM will have a very small effect on > > > >> the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Raising the temperature of the > > > >> earth will shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the > > > >> water, and more CO2 enters the atmosphere. > > > > > Have you already forgotten a temperature increase decreases solubility? > > > > Your question is based on a false premise. I prefer people state their > > > meaning rather than avoid making a direct statement by asking a question. > > > > A temperature increase TENDS to decrease solubility of gases, and > > > increase the solubility of solids. > > > As a reminder, you said "Raising the temperature of the earth will > > shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the water..". > > CO2 is not a solid and more will not enter the water with increasing > > temperatures. > > There's no such thing as pure CO2. Like h2o is always laced with all > sorts of natural and artificial elements. Whatever goes up must come > down, except for all the helium and some of the hydrogen as well as a > little O2 goes away forever. > > The world needs to know: > Glaciers and other well established volumes of slow-ice have been > thawing from the ground up, as much or more so than from the top down > since 12,900 BP, and especially accelerated as of 11,712 BP as though > direct sunlight finally broke through them clouds that shouldnt have > existed if this last ice-age were merely another natural fluke of > terrestrial and solar cycles. However, does anyone really care > outside of protecting their purely for-profit investments (including > their job and/or retirement security)? > > Perhaps its only getting hotter, stormier and suckier because Earth > has been losing mass, no thanks to the diligent likes of > dysfunctionals like BP and so many others spilling, venting, toxic > saturating and converting so much of their raw hydrocarbons into CO2, > NOx plus any number of toxic and acidic secondary elements to boot. I > mean, what Eden like planet isnt complete without massive and > expanding dead-zones of oxygen depleted ocean, and having its > agricultural infrastructure made so toxic that even robust exoskeleton > life cant coexist. > > We're sucking Earth dry in more ways than ever before, as well as > having been polluting the living hell out of mother Earths land, sea > and atmosphere, plus we're losing roughly a tonne per second to boot > (mostly helium and hydrogen). Gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong? > > Scientists baffled by unusual upper atmosphere shrinkage>http://www..cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/inde...> > > (CNN) -- An upper layer of Earth's atmosphere recently shrank so > much that researchers are at a loss to adequately explain it, NASA > said on Thursday. > > "This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 > years," John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab was quoted as saying in > NASA news report. Intresting, I wonder what will happen when solar activity starts increasing. Perhaps increased disruption of satellite communications? > There's lots more critical info if you'd care to research into any of > this, as well as objective science as to how much is getting > artificially spilled and vented into our environment. > http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/inde.... > > Don't expect any of our resident Usenet/newsgroup Semites to give a > tinker's damn, other than expect their usual tactical swarm gauntlet > of topic/author stalking and bashing for all its worth. Even pretend- > Atheists that act/react exactly like devout Zionist/Jews are so > dysfunctional when it comes down to helping anyone except themselves. > > Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight > Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream > can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that > way. > http://www.freedman.com/ > http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: hersheyh on 18 Jul 2010 16:41 On Jul 18, 2:13 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 1:56 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > Unless you have some theory on how the slight increase of temperature > > each year triggers a release and/or formation of giga tons of CO2 / > > year . . . > > [snip] > > Your inability to read a simple graph is noted. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > The cycles are not yearly. You are going to have to explain why the above graph is so radically different from the much simpler graph of the raw unprocessed data for the CO2 levels from Mauna Loa (which do show a yearly fluctuation) and the GISTEMP land-ocean global mean over the same time frame and with only a normalization of the two curves. Exactly what manipulations have been made by the steps you did and why is your graph more meaningful than mine because of them (below)? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1958/normalise I thought the Mauna Loa data you presented looked quite different from the graph of the Mauna Loa data I have seen many times previously. Looks like the only thing I can see from my graph is a general increase in CO2 and temperature. I checked sunspot activity for the same years normalized and don't see any correlation with solar activity by that measure. But a similar correlation between general temperature trend and CO2 trend was observed with other temperature measurements. > > Still waiting for your theory on how the lagging co2 level causes a > reversal in the temperature trend before hand.
From: Bruce Richmond on 18 Jul 2010 16:47 On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > intelligence. > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > addition to this cycle. > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the exclusion of all else. I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the graph I posted. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 Those are multi year cycles. > > > As you say, the ocean must be absorbing the "missing" anthropogenic > > co2, but it also must be passing it on to some other sink. > > What possible sink does the anthropogenic CO2 have access to that > other CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean does not? You still have not > explained how one can keep on adding CO2 from a source that takes a > very long time to accumulate (fossil fuels) without that having any > effect nor how the ocean can get more acidic (or less basic, if you > prefer) at the same time it is acting as the CO2 source for the > *increased* CO2 since the industrial revolution. Your argument simply > does not add up. There are a lot of minerals disolved in the ocean. It is salty because salts are formed when acids and bases get together. I would not go so far as to say the added co2 does nothing, but it does not just keep collecting in the ocean either. > > The > > atmospheric co2 and co2 in solution stay in equilibrium at a constant > > temperature. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > Yes. And more atmospheric CO2 means more oceanic CO2, just as higher > temperature in the water means less CO2. However, the concentration > of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly is the more important driver of the > equilibrium change because we can see that the pH change (and change > in the saturation boundaries) is in the direction expected if oceanic > CO2 levels were *increasing* and not in the direction expected if > oceanic CO2 levels were dropping. That is, the level of CO2 is > increasing in *both* the atmosphere and ocean. It is not decreasing > in the ocean and increasing in the atmosphere. I never said the ocean levels were dropping. My claim was that they aren't increasing at any where near the rate they would if all the added carbon was staying in the form of co2. As for the atmosphere being the more important driver, that is ridiculous. It is obvious from the graph that atmospheric co2 is being driven up and down by the much larger mass in the ocean. The more important driver here is whatever is causing the multi year cycle in global temp. I don't know what that is, but it is not co2 since the co2 change lags the temp change. I am not going to speculate on the cause of that change and don't need to. What I wrote is based on the observed data. I don't need a working theory of how the sun was formed to observe that it shines. > > "At a given temperature, the composition of a pure carbonic acid > > solution (or of a pure CO2 solution) is completely determined by the > > partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the solution." > > > As the ocean warms it cannot hold as much co2 so it starts expelling > > co2 into the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric co2 to go up. The > > old equilibrium between the air and water doesn't apply any more > > because the temperature changed. As the ocean cools it can absorb > > more co2 out of the air, causing atmospheric co2 to decline. In both > > cases the change in atmospheric co2 lags behind the temperature change > > because it takes time for the temp change to work its way down from > > the surface. This is all in complete agreement with the empirical > > data used to construct the graph. > > Like I said. That can certainly be true. However, we are not seeing > that. Instead we are seeing an increase in *both* atmospheric and > ocean CO2 levels. That is what would be expected if the atmospheric > CO2 levels were increasing because of input CO2 from some non-oceanic > source, like, say, fossil fuel use. > Again, I have not said that the ocean levels haven't changed at all. I have only claimed that they have not changed to the extent that tey would if they were acting as a simple co2 sink as is often claimed by the AGW crowd. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2 > > > "In the oceans > > There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the sea water > > of the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and > > carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere." > > > With the ocean holding fifty times as much carbon as the atmosphere, > > its temperture driven ability to hold co2 overwhelms the atmosphere. > > Very small fluctuations in ocean temp can cause significant changes in > > atmospheric co2, both up and down. So it is not acting as a sink so > > much as a buffer based on its thermal mass. > > Again, the evidence points to the oceans currently acting as a CO2 > sink for the anthropogenic CO2, not as a net source of atmospheric > CO2. That is because the amount of CO2 is *increasing* in both > atmosphere and ocean (as indicated by measurement of the atmosphere > and the pH change in the oceans). Maybe at some point the ocean will > be unable to absorb any more atmospheric CO2. But that time is not > now. The graph clearly shows that right now the slightest increase in temp forces co2 out of the ocean. You may not like that, but it is what is observed. > > Where did the "missing" anthropogenic co2 go? When co2 is disolved in > > water it makes carbonic acid. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > Yes. Why do you think that the oceans are becoming more acidic (less > basic)? Because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 because there is > more CO2 in the atmosphere. > When the ocean is pumping co2 back into the atmosphere, which the graph shows it is doing about half the time, it is not absorbing more co2 from the atmosphere. Yes, in the long run it is absorbing more, but it is very close to equilibrium and can go without a net gain for over two years at a time. Hardly the picture that some here have painted. > > > "Carbonic acid is the organic compound with the formula H2CO3 > > (equivalently OC(OH)2). It is also a name sometimes given to solutions > > of carbon dioxide in water, which contain small amounts of H2CO3. The > > salts of carbonic acids are called bicarbonates (or hydrogen > > carbonates) and carbonates. It is a weak acid. When dissolved in > > water, carbon dioxide exists in equilibrium with carbonic acid:" > > > I'm not going to go into great detail here but it is obvious there are > > many carbonates that can be formed when the carbonic acid reacts with > > various chemicals. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate > > > "In geology and mineralogy, the term "carbonate" can refer both to > > carbonate minerals and carbonate rock (which is made of chiefly > > carbonate minerals), and both are dominated by the carbonate ion, > > CO2-3. Carbonate minerals are extremely varied and ubiquitous in > > chemically-precipitated sedimentary rock. The most common are calcite > > or calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the chief constituent of limestone (as > > well as the main component of mollusc shells and coral skeletons); > > dolomite, a calcium-magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2; and siderite, or > > iron (II) carbonate, FeCO3, an important iron ore. Sodium carbonate > > ("soda" or "natron") and potassium carbonate ("potash") have been used > > since antiquity for cleaning and preservation, as well as for the > > manufacture of glass. Carbonates are widely used in industry, e.g. in > > iron smelting, as a raw material for Portland cement and lime > > manufacture, in the composition of ceramic glazes, and more." > > > "Most carbonate salts are insoluble in water at standard temperature > > and pressure, with solubility constants of less than 1×10-8. > > Exceptions include sodium, potassium and ammonium carbonates, as well > > as many uranium carbonates." > > > Whenever a carbonate is formed it changes the equilibrium between co2 > > and carbonic acid, so a co2 molecule must convert to cabonic acid to > > restore the equilibrium. For a given temp, when enough co2 molecules > > have converted to carbonic acid it upsets the equilibrium between co2 > > in the air and water, so a co2 molocule must be absorbed into the > > water to restore the balance. > > > So the true carbon sink isn't the ocean water as is often claimed, but > > the carbonates that are formed, often to precipitate out. > > The net rate of CO2 getting converted to CaCO3s is quite slow. It is > a biological process that, depending on the particular species, > produces aragonite or calcite shells and maintains them over the life > of the organism. At death, a *small* fraction gets buried under > either more CO3 shells or in the muck (many protist shells fall below > the saturation line and dissolve; the deep ocean deposits are not > limestones). This occurs only very slowly and only on the continental > shelves or atoll regions. There is no rain of chemically produced > CaCO3 occurring in the oceans (except in a few shallow tidal regions) > even in areas where there is supersaturation for CaCO3s. There are many forms of carbonates that have nothing to do with organic processes. It is also possible for the salts formed to stay in suspension. I know there has been much talk of mining minerals on the ocean floor that have collected on the surface. I don't know enough about what is there to make any claims, but I doubt you do either. Anyway, my point was to show that the relationships involved are not nearly as simple as they are often portrayed.
From: M Purcell on 18 Jul 2010 23:29 On Jul 18, 1:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > addition to this cycle. > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > exclusion of all else. > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > graph I posted. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > > > > As you say, the ocean must be absorbing the "missing" anthropogenic > > > co2, but it also must be passing it on to some other sink. > > > What possible sink does the anthropogenic CO2 have access to that > > other CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean does not? You still have not > > explained how one can keep on adding CO2 from a source that takes a > > very long time to accumulate (fossil fuels) without that having any > > effect nor how the ocean can get more acidic (or less basic, if you > > prefer) at the same time it is acting as the CO2 source for the > > *increased* CO2 since the industrial revolution. Your argument simply > > does not add up. > > There are a lot of minerals disolved in the ocean. It is salty > because salts are formed when acids and bases get together. I would > not go so far as to say the added co2 does nothing, but it does not > just keep collecting in the ocean either. > > > > The > > > atmospheric co2 and co2 in solution stay in equilibrium at a constant > > > temperature. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > Yes. And more atmospheric CO2 means more oceanic CO2, just as higher > > temperature in the water means less CO2. However, the concentration > > of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly is the more important driver of the > > equilibrium change because we can see that the pH change (and change > > in the saturation boundaries) is in the direction expected if oceanic > > CO2 levels were *increasing* and not in the direction expected if > > oceanic CO2 levels were dropping. That is, the level of CO2 is > > increasing in *both* the atmosphere and ocean. It is not decreasing > > in the ocean and increasing in the atmosphere. > > I never said the ocean levels were dropping. My claim was that they > aren't increasing at any where near the rate they would if all the > added carbon was staying in the form of co2. As for the atmosphere > being the more important driver, that is ridiculous. It is obvious > from the graph that atmospheric co2 is being driven up and down by the > much larger mass in the ocean. The more important driver here is > whatever is causing the multi year cycle in global temp. I don't know > what that is, but it is not co2 since the co2 change lags the temp > change. I am not going to speculate on the cause of that change and > don't need to. What I wrote is based on the observed data. I don't > need a working theory of how the sun was formed to observe that it > shines. > > > > > > > > "At a given temperature, the composition of a pure carbonic acid > > > solution (or of a pure CO2 solution) is completely determined by the > > > partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the solution." > > > > As the ocean warms it cannot hold as much co2 so it starts expelling > > > co2 into the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric co2 to go up. The > > > old equilibrium between the air and water doesn't apply any more > > > because the temperature changed. As the ocean cools it can absorb > > > more co2 out of the air, causing atmospheric co2 to decline. In both > > > cases the change in atmospheric co2 lags behind the temperature change > > > because it takes time for the temp change to work its way down from > > > the surface. This is all in complete agreement with the empirical > > > data used to construct the graph. > > > Like I said. That can certainly be true. However, we are not seeing > > that. Instead we are seeing an increase in *both* atmospheric and > > ocean CO2 levels. That is what would be expected if the atmospheric > > CO2 levels were increasing because of input CO2 from some non-oceanic > > source, like, say, fossil fuel use. > > Again, I have not said that the ocean levels haven't changed at all. > I have only claimed that they have not changed to the extent that tey > would if they were acting as a simple co2 sink as is often claimed by > the AGW crowd. > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2 > > > > "In the oceans > > > There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the sea water > > > of the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and > > > carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere." > > > > With the ocean holding fifty times as much carbon as the atmosphere, > > > its temperture driven ability to hold co2 overwhelms the atmosphere. > > > Very small fluctuations in ocean temp can cause significant changes in > > > atmospheric co2, both up and down. So it is not acting as a sink so > > > much as a buffer based on its thermal mass. > > > Again, the evidence points to the oceans currently acting as a CO2 > > sink for the anthropogenic CO2, not as a net source of atmospheric > > CO2. That is because the amount of CO2 is *increasing* in both > > atmosphere and ocean (as indicated by measurement of the atmosphere > > and the pH change in the oceans). Maybe at some point the ocean will > > be unable to absorb any more atmospheric CO2. But that time is not > > now. > > The graph clearly shows that right now the slightest increase in temp > forces co2 out of the ocean. You may not like that, but it is what is > observed. > > > > Where did the "missing" anthropogenic co2 go? When co2 is disolved in > > > water it makes carbonic acid. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > Yes. Why do you think that the oceans are becoming more acidic (less > > basic)? Because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 because there is > > more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > When the ocean is pumping co2 back into the atmosphere, which the > graph shows it is doing about half the time, it is not absorbing more > co2 from the atmosphere. Yes, in the long run it is absorbing more, > but it is very close to equilibrium and can go without a net gain for > over two years at a time. Hardly the picture that some here have > painted. Using the oceans as a co2 sink is usually a favorite of the anti-AGW crowd and you seemed to be suggesting the excess co2 would precipiate in the form of carbonates from ocean water. From the very close correlation of the graph I would agree the oceans are close to equilibrium and as I suggested, the melting ice (and snow) may produce the delay in co2 responce to temperature. As sea ice melts (and freezes) it increases (and decreases) the solubility of the water while absorbing (and releasing) latent heat and cooling the ocean with no increase of sea level. However on land there is a delay between snow accumulation and return to the oceans, which does increase sea level. An increasing albedo from cloud cover may offeset the warming but clouds also act as "greenhouse gases" and wouldn't increase until the oceans warmed.
From: hersheyh on 18 Jul 2010 23:54
On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > addition to this cycle. > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > exclusion of all else. > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > graph I posted. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > Those are multi year cycles. So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my graph. Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > > As you say, the ocean must be absorbing the "missing" anthropogenic > > > co2, but it also must be passing it on to some other sink. > > > What possible sink does the anthropogenic CO2 have access to that > > other CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean does not? You still have not > > explained how one can keep on adding CO2 from a source that takes a > > very long time to accumulate (fossil fuels) without that having any > > effect nor how the ocean can get more acidic (or less basic, if you > > prefer) at the same time it is acting as the CO2 source for the > > *increased* CO2 since the industrial revolution. Your argument simply > > does not add up. > > There are a lot of minerals disolved in the ocean. It is salty > because salts are formed when acids and bases get together. I would > not go so far as to say the added co2 does nothing, but it does not > just keep collecting in the ocean either. I agree. That is why the ocean will not ever get below pH 7. But the ocean is by no means saturated for carbon, especially at the lower depths (colder and higher pressure) below the saturation horizon. But distributing the C from the upper ocean through the rest of the ocean will take about 6000 years. And even the upper ocean can become more saturated for carbonate and bicarbonate (and lower pH) than it currently is before there will be *chemical* rather than *biochemical* removal. Biochemical removal in the form of CaCO3 does depend on a source of Ca. But the *fact* is that the ocean is currently a net sink, not a net source of atmospheric carbon. > > > The > > > atmospheric co2 and co2 in solution stay in equilibrium at a constant > > > temperature. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > Yes. And more atmospheric CO2 means more oceanic CO2, just as higher > > temperature in the water means less CO2. However, the concentration > > of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly is the more important driver of the > > equilibrium change because we can see that the pH change (and change > > in the saturation boundaries) is in the direction expected if oceanic > > CO2 levels were *increasing* and not in the direction expected if > > oceanic CO2 levels were dropping. That is, the level of CO2 is > > increasing in *both* the atmosphere and ocean. It is not decreasing > > in the ocean and increasing in the atmosphere. > > I never said the ocean levels were dropping. My claim was that they > aren't increasing at any where near the rate they would if all the > added carbon was staying in the form of co2. As for the atmosphere > being the more important driver, that is ridiculous. It is obvious > from the graph that atmospheric co2 is being driven up and down by the > much larger mass in the ocean. That graph is by no means clear. One of the lines claims to be atmospheric CO2 levels, but that line differs rather dramatically from the raw data for Mauna Loa CO2 levels for those years. I have no idea what this graph is measuring. > The more important driver here is > whatever is causing the multi year cycle in global temp. I don't know > what that is, but it is not co2 since the co2 change lags the temp > change. I am not going to speculate on the cause of that change and > don't need to. What I wrote is based on the observed data. I don't > need a working theory of how the sun was formed to observe that it > shines. > Again, all I have is your claim that this graph actually is what you claim it is. I have presented the raw Mauna Loa data and it doesn't look like your graph at all. So, again, what is this graph actually measuring and how was the Mauna Loa CO2 data manipulated to acheive that graph. > > > > "At a given temperature, the composition of a pure carbonic acid > > > solution (or of a pure CO2 solution) is completely determined by the > > > partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the solution." > > > > As the ocean warms it cannot hold as much co2 so it starts expelling > > > co2 into the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric co2 to go up. The > > > old equilibrium between the air and water doesn't apply any more > > > because the temperature changed. As the ocean cools it can absorb > > > more co2 out of the air, causing atmospheric co2 to decline. In both > > > cases the change in atmospheric co2 lags behind the temperature change > > > because it takes time for the temp change to work its way down from > > > the surface. This is all in complete agreement with the empirical > > > data used to construct the graph. > > > Like I said. That can certainly be true. However, we are not seeing > > that. Instead we are seeing an increase in *both* atmospheric and > > ocean CO2 levels. That is what would be expected if the atmospheric > > CO2 levels were increasing because of input CO2 from some non-oceanic > > source, like, say, fossil fuel use. > > Again, I have not said that the ocean levels haven't changed at all. > I have only claimed that they have not changed to the extent that tey > would if they were acting as a simple co2 sink as is often claimed by > the AGW crowd. > You may claim that, but I don't see any supporting evidence. The ocean has more than enough capacity to absorb the half of the CO2 pumped by humans into the atmosphere. If we were to stop doing so the extra anthropogenic atmospheric concentration would (over 6000 years) decay and wind up in the ocean sink. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2 > > > > "In the oceans > > > There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the sea water > > > of the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and > > > carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere." > > > > With the ocean holding fifty times as much carbon as the atmosphere, > > > its temperture driven ability to hold co2 overwhelms the atmosphere. > > > Very small fluctuations in ocean temp can cause significant changes in > > > atmospheric co2, both up and down. So it is not acting as a sink so > > > much as a buffer based on its thermal mass. > > > Again, the evidence points to the oceans currently acting as a CO2 > > sink for the anthropogenic CO2, not as a net source of atmospheric > > CO2. That is because the amount of CO2 is *increasing* in both > > atmosphere and ocean (as indicated by measurement of the atmosphere > > and the pH change in the oceans). Maybe at some point the ocean will > > be unable to absorb any more atmospheric CO2. But that time is not > > now. > > The graph clearly shows that right now the slightest increase in temp > forces co2 out of the ocean. You may not like that, but it is what is > observed. Yes. But unless there were some hidden source of CO2 coming directly *into* the ocean and not from the atmosphere, such a temperature induced loss of ocean CO2 would be observed by a *decrease* in ocean carbonates/bicarbonates, not an *increase* as indicated by a pH change. So are you claiming that there is some oceanic source of CO2 that has been radically changing? And an increase in CO2 *from* the ocean would still not account for the anthropogenic amount of CO2 that we *know* has been pumped into the atmosphere. You are still requiring *all* the anthropogenic CO2 to magically disappear from the atmosphere only to be replaced by a magical source of CO2 that both increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere *and* in the oceans. > > > > Where did the "missing" anthropogenic co2 go? When co2 is disolved in > > > water it makes carbonic acid. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > Yes. Why do you think that the oceans are becoming more acidic (less > > basic)? Because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 because there is > > more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > When the ocean is pumping co2 back into the atmosphere, which the > graph shows it is doing about half the time, it is not absorbing more > co2 from the atmosphere. Yes, in the long run it is absorbing more, > but it is very close to equilibrium and can go without a net gain for > over two years at a time. Hardly the picture that some here have > painted. > > Again, you have not explained how that graph was made and what it represents. > > > > "Carbonic acid is the organic compound with the formula H2CO3 > > > (equivalently OC(OH)2). It is also a name sometimes given to solutions > > > of carbon dioxide in water, which contain small amounts of H2CO3. The > > > salts of carbonic acids are called bicarbonates (or hydrogen > > > carbonates) and carbonates. It is a weak acid. When dissolved in > > > water, carbon dioxide exists in equilibrium with carbonic acid:" > > > > I'm not going to go into great detail here but it is obvious there are > > > many carbonates that can be formed when the carbonic acid reacts with > > > various chemicals. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate > > > > "In geology and mineralogy, the term "carbonate" can refer both to > > > carbonate minerals and carbonate rock (which is made of chiefly > > > carbonate minerals), and both are dominated by the carbonate ion, > > > CO2-3. Carbonate minerals are extremely varied and ubiquitous in > > > chemically-precipitated sedimentary rock. The most common are calcite > > > or calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the chief constituent of limestone (as > > > well as the main component of mollusc shells and coral skeletons); > > > dolomite, a calcium-magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2; and siderite, or > > > iron (II) carbonate, FeCO3, an important iron ore. Sodium carbonate > > > ("soda" or "natron") and potassium carbonate ("potash") have been used > > > since antiquity for cleaning and preservation, as well as for the > > > manufacture of glass. Carbonates are widely used in industry, e.g. in > > > iron smelting, as a raw material for Portland cement and lime > > > manufacture, in the composition of ceramic glazes, and more." > > > > "Most carbonate salts are insoluble in water at standard temperature > > > and pressure, with solubility constants of less than 1×10-8. > > > Exceptions include sodium, potassium and ammonium carbonates, as well > > > as many uranium carbonates." > > > > Whenever a carbonate is formed it changes the equilibrium between co2 > > > and carbonic acid, so a co2 molecule must convert to carbonic acid to > > > restore the equilibrium. For a given temp, when enough co2 molecules > > > have converted to carbonic acid it upsets the equilibrium between co2 > > > in the air and water, so a co2 molocule must be absorbed into the > > > water to restore the balance. > > > > So the true carbon sink isn't the ocean water as is often claimed, but > > > the carbonates that are formed, often to precipitate out. There are no carbonates precipitating out in the middle of the ocean, although some can in tidal salt pans after evaporation. Take a gallon of sea water and start evaporating it and see how much has to disappear before carbonates start precipitating out. Even the biologically induced/catalyzed carbonates in shells dissolve once the shell falls below the saturation horizon. > > The net rate of CO2 getting converted to CaCO3s is quite slow. It is > > a biological process that, depending on the particular species, > > produces aragonite or calcite shells and maintains them over the life > > of the organism. At death, a *small* fraction gets buried under > > either more CO3 shells or in the muck (many protist shells fall below > > the saturation line and dissolve; the deep ocean deposits are not > > limestones). This occurs only very slowly and only on the continental > > shelves or atoll regions. There is no rain of chemically produced > > CaCO3 occurring in the oceans (except in a few shallow tidal regions) > > even in areas where there is supersaturation for CaCO3s. > > There are many forms of carbonates that have nothing to do with > organic processes. It is also possible for the salts formed to stay > in suspension. I know there has been much talk of mining minerals on > the ocean floor that have collected on the surface. I don't know > enough about what is there to make any claims, but I doubt you do > either. I know enough carbonate chemistry to know you are blowing smoke. The fact remains that the only sink (on the timescale of decades rather than centuries) for anthropogenic CO2 remains the upper ocean, with the next sink being the rest of the ocean. Unless you know of another huge source of CO2 that can account for both the increase in CO2 in ocean waters *and* the increase in the atmosphere, the oceans are actually absorbing about half the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere > > Anyway, my point was to show that the relationships involved are not > nearly as simple as they are often portrayed. But, again, you presented a graph that purported to be something to do with atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa and temperature measurements. Yet when I run a graph of the raw data, it looks nothing like what you are presenting. Can you or can you not explain the manipulation of the raw data that resulted in the graph you presented? |