Reply With Quote
Belief in man caused climate change starts to make sense when you realize it's a religion and not a science.
What was Mouse banned for? You plan to do the same?
From my understanding, he had multiple troll ID's.
Belief in man caused climate change starts to make sense when you realize it's a religion and not a science.
I can see why.
I saw some of his questions I didn't see you answer many of them.
It depends on how long you want to debate.How many times must a person repeat themselves?
Why must a debate become a contest or a game with you all?Is the the person who repeats himself the most, the winner?
closed minded your thoughts are the only ones that count?Not in my book.
Is that your real goal to change peoples minds?Their comes a time that it just isn't worth trying to change someone's mind.
I thought a debate was different people posting different views and commenting on them. Yours and many others seem to be to push your own agendas on others and make them feel its your way or they are idiots.
I can see now why Phyzix brought up the FTP server it was a way out of the debate without admitting he was wrong.
Dude, do you have any idea how many women PM me everytime you post that picture?I can see why.
Bottom line, Earth is the !
Looks like a fat version of the O-Face guy on Office SpaceI can see why.
Says the pipsqueak who don't know . I got PWNED even before I can reply?
Yep.Says the pipsqueak who don't know . I got PWNED even before I can reply?
Oh, I almost forgot...............................
Never said it was.
Absolutely. And humans have added 3.6Tt of the stuff that was sitting dormant underground into the carbon cycle in the last 200 years. That is what has altered the cycle and is affecting the climate.Bull . First off, there is no way to distinguish between fossil emissions of the surface and undersea volcanoes in the are these measurements are take. There is no way to eliminate other possible isotopic ratio changes. This science is a joke, and on top of that, doesn't matter. In the long run, CO2 is CO2. Anthropogenic or not.
I simply said that no-one disputes the atmospheric CO2 concentration readings. You do? The observations are somehow incorrect? This is directly observed science - no modelling.Where can I get some of that wacky weed you're on?
There are plenty of us who dispute this as you laid it out.
I never mentioned sea level rise, so I'm not sure why you introduced it... oh, that's right, because people like you love to confuse the out of people by inserting irrelevencies. Stay on topic.There is far better evidence that the increased solar radiation has increased ocean temperatures enough to both raise the sea level by 15 to 20 cm in the last 100 years and change the equilibrium so that the ratio the ocean absorbs of gasses less than before. Then on top of that, CO2 increases alone cannot account for more than maybe a 0.06 pH decrease. Like any other complex system, other factors are in play.
Scientists contend that oceanic pH is down about 0.1pH during the Industrial Age.
So? A 4% flux in a complex system will, as you know, alter the equilibrium of the system and cause changes throughout. Also, the sizes of the sinks are IRRELEVENT. The quan y of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the rate of uptake into sinks, are the relevant numbers.Let's assume that the NASA/GISS simple carbon cycle model is correct. This one, found in Wikipedia, Carbon Cycle:
Please notice that sinks and sources are both over 200 GtC (giga-tons-carbon). I only mention that because it places man made CO2 at less than 4% of the carbon cycle flux.
Yeah, or we could do it because a bit over 8Gt of C is what we are putting into the atmosphere every year... you make it sound like some grand concession.Let's even increase the anthropogenic carbon to 8 GtC annually rather than the 5.5 since this is an older model.
Oh , really? This is your argument? You are including the 39,000Gt in the deep ocean sinks into this discussion - deep ocean sinks are largely IRRELEVANT when discussing the interaction of the atmosphere and the ocean's surface (the only relevant number there is the rate of flow between surface and deep oceans). The rate of assimilation into the ocean surface sink is the only relevant number when talking about the atmosphere. And then you are massively oversimplifying a complex system with nonsensical numbers that suit your case. Pulease.Please notice, the atmospheric CO2 is 750 GtC which corresponds to 350 ppm. Therefore, we have about 2.143 GtC per ppm.
Here is what becomes very important that alarmists deny. By this model, the ocean contains 39,120 GtC and the atmosphere 750. Notice I am only including the surface and deep ocean forms. If we look at just these two numbers, the ocean contains 98.119% of the carbon, and the atmosphere contains a measly 1.881% Lets just scale this back a little, for say, 1750, when the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. If the oceans absorbed 55% of the added CO2, the numbers to start with for 1750 would be about 600 GtC in the atmosphere and about and about 38,937 GtC in the ocean. We now have 1.518% in the atmosphere and 98.482% in the ocean.
Doesn't Henry's Law tell us that this is wrong?
Unless....
The ocean has increased in temperature, decreasing the solubility of CO2 in water...
Now it's only a 0.37% decrease. Let's see... That is in line with an approximate 0.046 C rise in average ocean temperature.
Tell me my math in this regard is wrong.
I wonder...
What happens if the ocean stayed at this temperature. What if, throughout the CO2 mankind added, the equilibrium stayed at 64.694:1?
OK, we start... Oh... On top of that, lets add 8 GtC per year, starting at 1750! I'll round to whole numbers.
Start, 1750, 38,937 in the ocean, 600 in the atmosphere, 280 ppm.
1760, 39,016 in the ocean, 601 in the atmosphere, 281 ppm
1770, 39,095 in the ocean, 602 in the atmosphere, still 281 ppm
1780, 39,173 in the ocean, 604 in the atmosphere, 282 ppm
This is going too slow....
1800, 39,331 in the ocean, 606 in the atmosphere, 283 ppm
1900, 40,119 in the ocean, 618 in the atmosphere, 289 ppm
2000, 40,907 in the ocean, 630 in the atmosphere, 294 ppm
2010, 40985 in the ocean, 632 in the atmosphere, 295 ppm
Isn't this a bit interesting?
Oh really? So you are saying the carbon in the atmosphere is coming from where? And where has the 1.6Gt humans have put into the atmosphere since 1970 magically disappeared to?I have done similar calculations based on equilibrium changes and concluded that even if there was no anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere, CO2 levels would be nearly as high as they are today.
http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/...eases_4525.htmYour 3.6E12 number is wrong. I don't know what the real number is, but that could a factor of 10 off. Your number is the equivalent of emitting 8 GtC annually for 450 years. There is no way mankind has emitted that much. Even if it were true, that added CO2 becomes only 305 ppm in the atmosphere with no increase of ocean temperature/equilibrium.
Source?
Got to be careful whether talking about C or CO2. I think that is 3.6Tt of CO2 equivalent, not C.
Even if the residence time (half-life is a term used in relation to nuclear decay and doesn't belong here) is 10 years, that doesn't invalidate the clearly observed buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor invalidate the fact that we add over 8Gt per year (and rising) of carbon to the atmosphere.As for your 100 to 120 years. Another convenient misconception by alarmists. Look at the slope of your oscillations in the Keeling curve. CO2 has a half-life to absorption in the equilibrium by somewhere under 10 years. With such a curve, the truth of absorption is far better than what 100-120 years implies.
Oh, and just to finish off, this study says the opposite of Knorr's, which suggests to me that we are unsure exactly how the elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere is affecting the rate of ocean surface CO2 absorption and that it requires further study:
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 01-01-2010 at 08:47 PM.
So you don't even believe in the right of reply? And you just take as gospel everything said by Cobra? And you constantly comment on a topic you have been proven to know nothing about. You are an idiot of such ridiculous proportions it astounds me.
Uh-huh.
Take up my challenge. Go and talk to some climate scientists from a university or major scientific organisation about what is happening to the climate. See what they have to say. Tens of thousands of them have founds evidence from various strands of science that humans are affecting the climate.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
BTW, if Cobra tried to explain all the evidence for evolution to mouse and hit the brick wall that is mouse's brain, I am on his side on that one. I was trained as an ecologist, and studied the evidence for evolution for 3 years - it is overwhelming, so much so that it's hard to believe that any rational human being still contends a Biblical history of the Earth when it has been proven so patently false.
Sons, I got 70-80 years on this earth, who gives a what happens when I'm gone?
You s enviromentalists need to chill!!
Have children? Care about anything beyond your own little body?
Spoken like a true believer...
Uh-huh.
Take up my challenge. Go and talk to some climate scientists from a university or major scientific organisation about what is happening to the climate. See what they have to say. Tens of thousands of them have founds evidence from various strands of science that humans are affecting the climate.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
Those "Climate Scientists" and "major scientific organizations" have d themselves out for grant money and written the "hockey stick" bible. You are a "true believer".
At least those ers that go for a literal translation of the Koran just strap explosives to themselves and kill a few people at a time.
You assholes want to strap explosives to modern society and blow us all back into the "earth friendly" dark ages.
3.6Tt = 982 GtC. Over 200 years, that's a 4.91 GtC annual average. I really doubt that number.
No, you said:If the equilibrium of the ocean sink did not change, atmospheric CO2 would be less.No scientist, denier or rational, disputes that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the consequent increase in acidity of the oceans. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is measured all over the world.
No, I simply added it because a certain amount of sea level rise is acknowledged as a result of ocean warming. Warming also affects equilibrium of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere.
Which is possible. However, without pointing that out, others make a claim that it is about 0.6 pH when that is the range of the natural variation.
You misunderstood. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 4% of the flux. A flux that has such a steep slope, it is laughable not to realize something else causes it to remain in the atmosphere.
I did indicate that it was an older model. I'm comfortable with 8 GtC. What is it, maybe about 7.7 GtC now?
At least you agree there is such a system occurring. I find it difficult for most people to agree this occurs. Now the thing is, about 80% of the sinking of CO2 is near the polar regions where the sea water is colder. It very shortly continues in the Thermohaline circulation to the deeper waters. It is a slow process for the complete circulation, as long as 1600 years, but the sinking is still fact. As early as 200 years, absorbed CO2 is now in the equatorial regions, where the oceans are a net source.
Well, 1.6 Gt is small. That's only 0.436 GtC. If there is a 45/55% split, then that is close to 1 GtC emission in 40 years. Did you mean 1.6 Tt? That would be an average 2.5 GtC per year which still seems low.
I am saying that 98+% of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere should be absorbed by the oceans. I am saying that equilibrium has changed due to ocean water warming. I am saying that even if we output no CO2, that solar irradiance changes that have increased the ocean warming over these last 400 years have changed the equilibrium.
Well, what ever they are talking about, it is deceptive or wrong. If it were 3.65 Tt of CO2, and other carbon containing molecules, it would equate to about 463 ppm in the atmosphere. The article says greenhouse gasses, which in reality include H2O. Water is a very large part of the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gasses.
Did you read the article and see the notes where they get their numbers from the IPCC?
Taxation records? Really now...
I was even being very generous in that assessment. Consider these words:
I would say it's hard to quantify a changing system. If you take just the increased average solar irradiance since 1900, realize the oceans cover 71% of the surface, and that they absorb more than 90% of the sun's energy, how can someone not realize that this latent heat not only changes the equation, but has a lag time too. Our solar irradiance has increased by approximately 0.2% since the Maunder Minimum to 2000 (NOAA-Judith Lean 2004). The annual change from 1700 to 2000 is 0.235% and the 11 year average for 1700 to 2000 is 0.196%. This latent energy will continue to change our climate for at least decades and likely for centuries to come.Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.
Keep in mind we calculate temperatures for science in the Kelvin scale. a 0.2% increase for an approximate 288 K adds 0.576 degrees. That alone is more than half the warming claimed since industrialization started. Now the average increase for the 300 years is only an average 0.08%, but when you add 71% x 90% x total annual energy of 174 petawatts for 300 years... If the oceans have retained all this increased energy, then it is about 26.7 petawatts. 15.3% of the annual energy. Now in reality, maybe only half to quarter of this stays latent with the circulation of the oceans, and the rest is shorter term lag in the surface oceans. There is no way mankind has of reducing the warming effect on the earth. Nature has to dissipate this energy herself. This is a major reason she has an elevated temperature. She is doing just that.
A very biased article if you ask me.
Why do they deny the effects of the solar increases starting about 1900? This would definitely account for what they attribute to other unknown things.
Warmer water means more outgassing in the equatorial regions and less absorption in the polar regions. This is simple equilibrium that needs no source. If you agree the oceans have warmed, then you must believe this is true, unless you refute the associated sciences that are well understood.They say that until the 1940s, the landscape produced excess carbon dioxide, possibly due to logging and the clearing and burning of forests for farming.
Dam Ruff is on fire pulling out the Al Gore bat on your ass!
Cobra is still holding his ground lets see how this plays out.........
Shut up Mouse, Ruff LIKES the KoolAid!
In a debate it's actually called "winning" the debate. You forgot what a debate really is. Both parties have different views on a subject and they express their opinions and sometimes argue and hit each other with questions that need to be answered, and then they debate on the answer given.
Both parties already have a "Brick wall" if they didn't then they would already agree on the subject and thus no need for a debate.
So your brick wall theory is just another way to pass the buck and try to leave a debate with at least 40% of your ass still intact.
Call it what it is brah!....
The facts are mouse was kicking everyones ass in tree different debates all at once, Two NASA topics and one Evolution topic. The man was pulling out charts that would make Ross Perot proud. Go re-read the topics try and pick up where you left off.
just don't tell Phyzix he may lock the topic.
Shut up Mouse, Ruff LIKES the KoolAid!
Dude that can be said about many of us in the Club who are passionate about our views and we continue to support them. You could say Angel_Luv drinks Jesus juice,are you saying you wouldn't have a sip of John Wayne's route 44?
What is this epic thread you're talking about? I wanna see!
do search on evolution or nasa
Why does Ruff always disappear when I give my replies to him?
Ruff, can you not dipute what I say?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
