Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

None of these papers you keep supplying disagree with anything I'm saying Fuzzy. You're the one that keeps throwing , hoping it will stick.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you agree with the figures in the MIT papers etc and their descriptions describing ocean modeling are fair representations of how the ocean behaves?

You agree that trying to predict the behavior of the ocean using a solubility chart and not considering these other factors is not representative of the ocean but instead only a very controlled simple laboratory experiment?

No one has ever disputed solubility states in water, dolt. You disputed that climate scientists considered them.

Do you agree that they do?

[Jacob1983]

Nobody cares about climate change anymore. It was a fad just like snuggies. Yeah, remember snuggies?

[Wild Cobra]

So you agree with the figures in the MIT papers etc and their descriptions describing ocean modeling are fair representations of how the ocean behaves?

You agree that trying to predict the behavior of the ocean using a solubility chart and not considering these other factors is not representative of the ocean but instead only a very controlled simple laboratory experiment?

No one has ever disputed solubility states in water, dolt. You disputed that climate scientists considered them.

Do you agree that they do?

I don't disagree that wind and other natural factors play a role like they speak of. None of your papers address what I am addressing. Sure, they speak of temperature, that the warmer waters have net out gas, and colder waters have net sinking, but they do not attempt to show what happens when the surface of the ocean gets warmer, or cooler.

I fail to understand why you think any of these four papers have something that disagrees with my contention related to how temperature changes solubility.

Don't you get it.

As the ocean warm, the tropical regions outgas more, and the cold regions absorb less.
They do do disagree with what temperature does to solubility. At the same time, they do not address it specifically the way I am.

I have never seen a study that addresses what a global changes in ocean temperature does to the equilibrium between the carbon dioxide/carbonic acid in the ocean, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Have you?

Like it or not, the solubility equations have merit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, they speak of temperature, that the warmer waters have net out gas, and colder waters have net sinking, but they do not attempt to show what happens when the surface of the ocean gets warmer, or cooler.

WTF are you talking about? They use observed temperature values in their calculations. They say the surface temperature is this and the deeper currents are this at this time and this at another time. That's how they model it. WTF do you think they just use the same number over and over again and don't consider that the temperature changes? gmfb and diaf.

we can evaluate the sensitivity of the ocean mean carbon concentration, C
, to the saturation state

The saturation state of seawater for a mineral (known as Ω) is a measure of the thermodynamic potential for the mineral to form or to dissolve, and is described by the following equation:

{\Omega} = \frac{\left[Ca^{2+}\right] \left[CO_{3}^{2-}\right]}{K_{sp}}

Here Ω is the product of the concentrations (or activities) of the reacting ions that form the mineral (Ca2+ and CO2−
3), divided by the product of the concentrations of those ions when the mineral is at equilibrium (Ksp), that is, when the mineral is neither forming nor dissolving.[30]

You are like the perfect storm of stupid and wishful thinking. How about you talk more about how they differentiate by time?

Everything they are talking about subsumes your simplification. Might as well talk about how 1+1 = 2 or the specific heat of water and pretend they do not consider that.

You are the one that pulls numbers out of your ass. They use actual measurements.

[Wild Cobra]

WTF are you talking about? They use observed temperature values in their calculations. They say the surface temperature is this and the deeper currents are this at this time and this at another time. That's how they model it. WTF do you think they just use the same number over and over again and don't consider that the temperature changes? gmfb and diaf.





You are like the perfect storm of stupid and wishful thinking. How about you talk more about how they differentiate by time?

Everything they are talking about subsumes your simplification. Might as well talk about how 1+1 = 1 or the specific heat of water and pretend they do not consider that.

You are the one that pulls numbers out of your ass. They use actual measurements.

Do they have measurements from 1750 top compare with?

You don't get it. Their saturation points change with temperature. Everything you provide has nothing to do with the same location changing temperature over decades or more of time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do they have measurements from 1750 top compare with?

You don't get it. Their saturation points change with temperature. Everything you provide has nothing to do with the same location changing temperature over decades or more of time.

Who gives a if they do?

So you think they use the same equilibrium points over and over again that they do not change them month by month, year by year as they are doing their calculations? When they talk about:

The solubility pump may be understood in terms of the volumes,
temperatures and carbon concentrations of the deep ocean and the thermocline box.

Schematic two-box ocean and atmosphere carbon cycle model. The depth of the ocean is
set to a constant, H(m). The top box is the atmospheric reservoir of CO2 with its total moles
M (mol). The middle box represents thermocline (upper ocean) which is warm with temperature
Tth and C concentration Cth. The depth of thermocline is h(m). The deep box represents abyssal
ocean with is cold with temperature Td and C concentration Cd.

They even point to temperature as a variable above.

The air-sea gas transfer term is expressed as a damping toward equilibrium or an
exponential decay of C. We have additional forcing on the r.h.s., which is expressed as
the change of Ceq following the water parcel, DCeq/Dt, reflecting changes in temperature,
salinity or alkalinity of the water parcel during its transit.

Here, we assume that alkalinity and salinity of waters are uniform in
space and time, and Ceq varies only with atmospheric pCO2 and sea-surface temperature.

In the boundary
current, v is positive (northward), c, is set by the gas exchange coefficient and carbonate
chemistry, and Ceq/ y depends on the relationship of solubility to temperature and the
SST distribution. Solubility decreases with temperature, Ceq/ T  0, and the meridional
temperature gradient, T/ y, is negative in the northern hemisphere, T/ y  0. Using the
chain rule, Ceq/ y  ( Ceq/ T) ( T/ y)  0, thus we find a positive gradient of Ceq in
the northern hemisphere.

Inc "I don't disagree" They consider that temperature changes. In fact it is central to their model. That you think that they do not is monumentally stupid and one of the most contemptible examples of confirmation bias i have ever seen.

[boutons_deux]

Will climate change kill off Washington state’s oysters?


Well, s fish survive within a narrow pH spectrum. Taylor S fish’s oyster hatchery — located in the Hood Canal fjord jutting out from Puget Sound — lets sea water in at two locations, one that’s 15 feet deep and one that’s 100 feet deep. One day last week, the pH of the water at 15 feet was 8.4, while the water’s pH at 100 feet deep was 7.5, meaning the hatchery has to be especially careful about where its water comes from.

Ocean acidification is increasing, and that increase is accelerating, says Busch. Near the beginning of the Industrial Revolution — 250 years ago — the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content is said to have been roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, we’re at about 390 ppm. The increase in carbon dioxide density in the air — and in the sea — is expected to significantly accelerate this century.

“We’re experiencing the impact of acidity before the rest of the world. … It scared the pants off us,” says Jay Manning, an environmental lawyer, the former chief of staff to Gregoire, and the panel’s co-chair.

That appropriation includes $250,000 to maintain a half-dozen federal buoys off Washington’s coast, plus links to another 20 buoys owned by other en ies.

Installed in 2010, the buoys hold sensors that can measure and transmit real-time weather and pH data to NOAA.

“With this monitoring equipment, we’re able to see corrosive water coming and dodge it,” Dewey says. In other words, hatcheries would be able to gauge when to allow sea water into the hatcheries.

David Steele, president of the Pacific Coast S fish Growers Association, is optimistic. “By keeping these sensors in the water,” he adds, “we can learn more about the changing water chemistry and develop ways to adapt.”

http://grist.org/food/will-climate-c...tates-oysters/

[MannyIsGod]

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

[RandomGuy]

That depends on how much people are willing to pay. You can get oil out of peanuts too for eternity. But it's pretty expensive.

At some point, peanut oil will be cheaper. Never mind the massive risk of screwing up our water table with all of this shale exploration

Fracking takes place at depths far below the water table.

I think some of what is going on now, is that the fracking is releasing gases that are seeping up through newly formed cracks, but that is an uninformed guess.

The funny thing about oil is that as the price goes up, you get "demand destruction", i.e. people using natgas for truck fleets, or pouring money into EV's and therefore not demanding as much oil, so this natural market mechanism will act to restrain price growth over longer periods. Economists call this subs ution.

One outgrowth of this is that, by keeping prices lower, it means there will be less money in pumping some known reserves out of the ground, so there will be less "economically" recoverable oil. It won't get pumped out of the ground if there isn't money to be made selling it.

The "tail" for oil will therefore be a lot flatter and a lot longer than some "peak oil" fanatics think.

[Wild Cobra]

Inc "I don't disagree" They consider that temperature changes. In fact it is central to their model. That you think that they do not is monumentally stupid and one of the most contemptible examples of confirmation bias i have ever seen.

Yes, they consider temperature for what they are doing. They do not consider the temperature changes for long term atmospheric differences. They don't say anything about the changes over the long term years.

This does not disagree with anything I said. It only supports the theory behind what I say.

[Wild Cobra]

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

Then please. Show me how it disagrees with my contention that the slow warming of the ocean over the decades changes the solubility.

-edit add-

At least one of the papers specifically said solubility of CO2 reacts like I said it does.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, they consider temperature for what they are doing. They do not consider the temperature changes for long term atmospheric differences. They don't say anything about the changes over the long term years.

This does not disagree with anything I said. It only supports the theory behind what I say.

You are like the perfect storm of stupid and wishful thinking. How about you talk more about how they differentiate by time?

Everything they are talking about subsumes your simplification. Might as well talk about how 1+1 = 2 or the specific heat of water and pretend they do not consider that.

You are the one that pulls numbers out of your ass. They use actual measurements.

You are dumb.

If its October of 1976 then in their equations they use the value's of that month. If it's June of 1989 then they use the values month. If it's 12/12/2000 then they use the values for that day. If they want to use the year 2003 then they take the mean values for that year.

What they do not do is take a solubility chart for fantasy land and fantasy time and then make up fantasy numbers to try to model the ocean fizzing like a boig soda that just ignores the feedback and buffering mechanisms.

They have satellite using spectral analysis to determine surface temperatures. They have people trolling in boats with thermometers and dropping buoys all over the globe taking actual measurements. They have been gathering data for centuries.

When the equation asked them for the surface temperature or the deep ocean temperature then they plug in these measured known values. If its a predictive model then they plug in the surface/abyssal temps that the equations popped out and do it again for the next sample. Do you think that the models pop out lower numbers and they just lie when they say warming figures are going up?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

You are just too stupid to understand how stupid you are about this.

Again, there study has nothing that disproves what I say. Their scope had no indications of addressing what I am. they simply use the same mechanisms, for a different scope, and that is where any similarities end.

I think I'll put your stupid ass back on IGNORE.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow...

You are just too stupid to understand how stupid you are about this.

Again, there study has nothing that disproves what I say. Their scope had no indications of addressing what I am. they simply use the same mechanisms, for a different scope, and that is where any similarities end.

I think I'll put your stupid ass back on IGNORE.

Go ahead and put on ignore dumbass. Put up that white flag.

You: The ocean has changed temperature n degrees over some arbitrary period of time. Lookee here: I have a solubility chart and can pull a bunch of numbers out of my ass. Given the difference in solubility from these fantasy numbers the ocean should fizz like a soda this much to equalize the pressures.

Scientists: Looking at the behavior of the ocean on a year by year basis, the amount of CO2 exchange can be modeled by looking at the windspeed on the ocean, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, upper and abyssal oceans, and the temperatures of the upper ocean and deep ocean. Even this is a simplification because the chemistry of the ocean effects the solubility as does the effects of biology the concentrations.

Your dumb ass does not understand the significance of looking at it on a year by year or a month by month basis. When they plug in the values for 1948 versus 2012 your dumb ass apparently thinks they put int he same number because your dumb ass thinks they use the same solubility state.

Reading the studies it becomes very obvious that they do not do this. Even in the conclusions they remark that in glacial periods more CO2 would be released due to said solubility.

Further the paper that I linked was a landmark study that is a foundation of understanding the manner in which the ocean and atmosphere exchange CO2. Its been cited nearly 1700 times. Your take is a landmark in simpleminded stupidity.

[Wild Cobra]

Go ahead and put on ignore dumbass. Put up that white flag.

You: The ocean has changed temperature n degrees over some arbitrary period of time. Lookee here: I have a solubility chart and can pull a bunch of numbers out of my ass. Given the difference in solubility from these fantasy numbers the ocean should fizz like a soda this much to equalize the pressures.

Scientists: Looking at the behavior of the ocean on a year by year basis, the amount of CO2 exchange can be modeled by looking at the windspeed on the ocean, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, upper and abyssal oceans, and the temperatures of the upper ocean and deep ocean. Even this is a simplification because the chemistry of the ocean effects the solubility as does the effects of biology the concentrations.

Your dumb ass does not understand the significance of looking at it on a year by year or a month by month basis. When they plug in the values for 1948 versus 2012 your dumb ass apparently thinks they put int he same number because your dumb ass thinks they use the same solubility state.

Reading the studies it becomes very obvious that they do not do this. Even in the conclusions they remark that in glacial periods more CO2 would be released due to said solubility.

Further the paper that I linked was a landmark study that is a foundation of understanding the manner in which the ocean and atmosphere exchange CO2. Its been cited nearly 1700 times. Your take is a landmark in simpleminded stupidity.

Talk to the hand Fuzzy.

If you could get any of what I claim right, I would consider continuing a debate with you. As it is since you are too stupid to realize the nuances between what your links say, and what I say...

You simply are not worth the time.

Do you really think you have the upper hand?

Andd...

the whit flag...

Yes...

I surrender (not). I simply will not waste my time on your stupid ass. I have better things to do. If that's a win for you, then you are even more pathetic than I can imagine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

Exactly.

What do subsume mean?

[Agloco]

Its hard for someone to understand that a paper is telling them they are wrong when they can't understand what the paper says.

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Some unknown schmo said this years ago. WC breaks this rule at every turn.

[boutons_deux]

Then please. Show me how it disagrees with my contention that the slow warming of the ocean over the decades changes the solubility.

-edit add-

At least one of the papers specifically said solubility of CO2 reacts like I said it does.

warming of water increases gaseous (CO2) solubility, which INCREASES oceanic acidity beyond its very narrow range, which is a catastrophe for much of ocean flora and fauna.

[RandomGuy]

PoopDeck has added a few more to his preciousssss lissssst.

[DarrinS]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1662151109001

[boutons_deux]

Warming gas levels hit 'troubling milestone'

The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.

Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.

"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.

For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

It's been at least 800,000 years — probably more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.

economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot.

Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display

anti-scientific AGW deniers LYING non stop

[boutons_deux]

Leading Companies Mislead Public on Climate Science, Policy

Many of the country’s leading companies have taken contradictory actions when it comes to climate change science while pumping a tremendous amount of resources into influencing the discussion, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The science advocacy group examined 28 companies in the S&P 500 that participated in climate policy debates over the past several years. All of them publicly expressed concern about climate change or a commitment to reducing emissions through websites and public statements, but half (14) also misrepresented climate science in their public communications. Many more contributed to the spread of misinformation about climate science in less direct ways, such as through political contributions, trade group memberships, and think tank funding.

“Corporations' increased ability to influence policy should come with an increased responsibility to let the public know how they are doing so,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program and a contributor to the report. “Companies may play a role in policy discussions, but right now, it’s simply far too easy for them to get away with misrepresenting science to achieve their goals.”

Utilizing an array of publicly available data, the report systematically examines how corporate influence fosters confusion on climate change. The analysis found that some American companies, including NRG Energy, Inc., NIKE, Inc. and AES Corporation, accept the findings of climate science and have taken actions in support of science-based policy. Other corporations, including Peabody Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation, and FMC Corporation, have worked aggressively to undermine climate policies and have misrepresented climate science to do so.

Several companies stand out for taking contradictory actions on climate change. Caterpillar Inc., for instance, highlights its commitment to sustainability and climate change mitigation on its website. But the company also serves on the boards of two trade groups that regularly attempt to undermine public understanding of climate science: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Caterpillar also funds the Cato Ins ute and the Heritage Foundation, two think tanks that have misrepresented climate science.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips says on its website that it recognizes human activity is “contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” But in comments to the Environmental Protection Agency, the company criticized scientific evidence on the ways climate change can harm public health.

“The difference between what many of these companies say and what they actually do is quite stark,” said Gretchen Goldman, an analyst in the Scientific Integrity Program and a report contributor. “And because we know only limited amounts about their activities, it’s relatively simple for companies to show one face to the public and another to policymakers.”


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...port-0390.html

BP hyped itself as a green company for years

[Wild Cobra]

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Some unknown schmo said this years ago. WC breaks this rule at every turn.

You all are the ones who do not understand.

Those papers do not disagree with what I have been saying about solubility of CO2 in the ocean, or why the levels could react and change like I contend. In fact, they support my argument.

Notice how nobody has come out and quoted a part showing why I'm wrong?

They cant!

[Wild Cobra]

warming of water increases gaseous (CO2) solubility, which INCREASES oceanic acidity beyond its very narrow range, which is a catastrophe for much of ocean flora and fauna.

Sure, gaseous vs. dissolved in the water, but between the water and atmosphere, the end result is less CO2/carbonic acid in the water, the warmer it becomes. As it warms, the levels saturate, and some releases into the atmosphere.

My argument isn't about pH. It's about how temperature affects the sinking of CO2 in the northern regions, and the sourcing of CO2 in the tropical regions.

Warmer water has a reduced saturation point of CO2/carbonic acid than cooler water does. When the tropical regions are warmer than in decades past, their net release is greater than in decades past, under the same atmospheric CO2 levels Same principle applies to the northern regions. When the cold water which is a CO2 sink gets warmer, it cannot sink as much as it did in decades past.

This is why I gave a simple example earlier that was temperature change only, CO2 change only, and both. In the end, the ocean still sinks more CO2 than the past because of what we generate. If we didn't add any to the atmosphere, the ocean would instead to get where the new average surface temperatures require for balance.

Now Bouton's...

CO2 isn't the only thing that changes ocean pH. Again, that is a different argument anyway. Consider how small a 30% increase is compared to the log scale where a level 1000% greater ion difference is a change of 1 in pH.