400 ppm in our lifetimes?

[mamooth]

You obviously didn't read the papers.

Sure I did. They talked about temporary and local cases. Why did you claim they said the all of the oceans were outgassing CO2? Was that deliberate dishonesty, or were you just being stupid again?

You should give up with the endless dishonest cherrypicks. Nobody outside of your cult falls for that scam, and it makes you look pathetic. You can't even get the other deniers here to join in, that's how bad you look.

You've been snookerd by a bunch of loonies, mainly your Sky Dragon pals. So why were you so easily hoodwinked? I'd guess it's because you want to be seen as intelligent and brave, without having to actually think or do any work.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It doesn't matter what is said on this board, you manage to make a comment that is either misinformed, an outright lie, or just plain stupid.

Hey kook, where'd you crib that list of dishonestly misrepresented and cherrypicked links from?

I can check quick, since there are only a couple denier websites willing to lie that brazenly for TheCause. "CO2 science"? Nope. "Principia Scientifica International"? Nope. "The Hockey Schtick" ... DING! WE HAVE A WINNA!

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds rivers and lakes are large net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere

So not only is SSDD a fine brainless parrot, he's not even honest enough to tell us where he was cribbing his links and descriptions from.

You obviously didn't read the papers. Chalk up one more logical fallacy to your never ending stream of them. The fact is that the oceans have been found to be net source of CO2 to the atmosphere precisely as I stated and has been substantiated over and over by ice core data. Warming oceans outgas CO2....fact.

, good luck trying to get anyone to fall for your dishonest cherrypicking and misrepresentation. The oceans are CO2 sinks; that's the actual science.

Sorry admiral hairball...I provided links to the papers themselves...The oceans are net sources of CO2 and the peer reviewed science is on my side...your models fail once again. By the way, are you saying that Nature published a paper finding that rivers and lakes are net sources of CO2 when they know that they aren't? Being a pissy old woman doesn't change the fact that the actual science, as opposed to the models finds that the oceans...and rivers and lakes....and rice patties....and several other claimed CO2 sinks are, in fact, net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere contrary to the pseudoscience making that claim.

other well-established science you'd like to overturn by cherrypicking and making crap up? No, not the backradiation again, we've already been over your failure to understand the Second Law.

Contrary to your belief....model output is not actually well established science...it is well established bullshit..but not science.

Modern CO2 is different.... Its a driver... Uh huh its the biggest control knob...maybe ever... If modern CO2 met Vostok ice today it would kick its ass...

The APS needs to boot these lying fuckers to the curb they're a stain on every real scientist

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Dot Com]

SSDD is a denier drone as are all the rest. Their ideology depends upon it.

 

[SSDD]

You obviously didn't read the papers.

Sure I did. They talked about temporary and local cases. Why did you claim they said the all of the oceans were outgassing CO2? Was that deliberate dishonesty, or were you just being stupid again?

You should give up with the endless dishonest cherrypicks. Nobody outside of your cult falls for that scam, and it makes you look pathetic. You can't even get the other deniers here to join in, that's how bad you look.

You've been snookerd by a bunch of loonies, mainly your Sky Dragon pals. So why were you so easily hoodwinked? I'd guess it's because you want to be seen as intelligent and brave, without having to actually think or do any work.

abe can't read a chart and apparently you can't read english. Those papers don't say anything like what you claim they say. The oceans are, in fact, net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. Of course, I am not surprised that one of the biggest idiots on the board can't read and comprehend....if you could, maybe you wouldn't be a hysterical alarmist.

 

[Old Rocks]

You obviously didn't read the papers.

Sure I did. They talked about temporary and local cases. Why did you claim they said the all of the oceans were outgassing CO2? Was that deliberate dishonesty, or were you just being stupid again?

You should give up with the endless dishonest cherrypicks. Nobody outside of your cult falls for that scam, and it makes you look pathetic. You can't even get the other deniers here to join in, that's how bad you look.

You've been snookerd by a bunch of loonies, mainly your Sky Dragon pals. So why were you so easily hoodwinked? I'd guess it's because you want to be seen as intelligent and brave, without having to actually think or do any work.

abe can't read a chart and apparently you can't read english. Those papers don't say anything like what you claim they say. The oceans are, in fact, net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. Of course, I am not surprised that one of the biggest idiots on the board can't read and comprehend....if you could, maybe you wouldn't be a hysterical alarmist.

As usual, you are full of Bullshit. Here is real information from NOAA;

How the oceans absorb carbon dioxide is critical for predicting climate change

Ocean Carbon Uptake

Air-sea gas exchange is a physio-chemical process, primarily controlled by the air-sea difference in gas concentrations and the exchange coefficient, which determines how quickly a molecule of gas can move across the ocean-atmosphere boundary. It takes about one year to equilibrate CO2 in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO2, so it is not unusual to observe large air-sea differences in CO2 concentrations. Most of the differences are caused by variability in the oceans due to biology and ocean circulation. The oceans contain a very large reservoir of carbon that can be exchanged with the atmosphere because the CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the interaction with the surface ocean will change the chemistry of the seawater resulting in ocean acidification.

Evidence suggests that the past and current ocean uptake of human-derived (anthropogenic) CO2 is primarily a physical response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Whenever the partial pressure of a gas is increased in the atmosphere over a body of water, the gas will diffuse into that water until the partial pressures across the air-water interface are equilibrated. However, because the global carbon cycle is intimately embedded in the physical climate system there exist several feedback loops between the two systems. For example, increasing CO2 modifies the climate which in turn impacts ocean circulation and therefore ocean CO2 uptake. Changes in marine ecosystems resulting from rising CO2 and/or changing climate can also result in changes in air-sea CO2 exchange. These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future.

 

[SSDD]

As usual, you are full of Bullshit. Here is real information from NOAA;

How the oceans absorb carbon dioxide is critical for predicting climate change

Ocean Carbon Uptake

A statement from NOAA (known to alter data) vs published paper after paper stating the opposite? Sorry...NOAA is no longer credible.

And since they are obviously colossal failures at predicting climate change, it is little surprise that they got the fact that the oceans are net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere wrong.....they have everything else wrong, why be surprised about this?

 

[Old Rocks]

YaleNews | Oceans Absorbing Carbon Dioxide More Slowly, Yale Scientist Finds

The world’s oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide (CO2), a Yale geophysicist has found after pooling data taken over the past 50 years. With the oceans currently absorbing over 40 percent of the CO2 emitted by human activity, this could quicken the pace of climate change, according to the study, which appears in the November 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

Jeffrey Park, professor of geology and geophysics and director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies, used data collected from atmospheric observing stations in Hawaii, Alaska and Antarctica to study the relationship between fluctuations in global temperatures and the global abundance of atmospheric CO2 on interannual (one to 10 years) time scales. A similar study from 20 years ago found a five-month lag between interannual temperature changes and the resulting changes in CO2 levels. Park has now found that this lag has increased from five to at least 15 months.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Ocean Carbon Cycle | Harvard Magazine Nov-Dec 2002

Of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere, one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter by the oceans. Understanding these natural mechanisms is important in forecasting the rise of atmospheric CO2 because even though plants and bodies of water now absorb surplus greenhouse gas, they could become new trouble spots. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science.

Besides the slow pace of ocean turnover, two more factors determine the rate at which the seas take up carbon dioxide. One is the availability of carbonate, which comes from huge deposits of calcite (shells) in the upper levels of the ocean. These shells must dissolve in ocean water in order to be available to aid in the uptake of CO2, but the rate at which they dissolve is controlled by the ocean’s acidity. The ocean’s acidity does rise with increased CO2, but the slow pace of ocean circulation prevents this process from developing useful momentum. It takes a long time for the increased acidity to reach the vulnerable calcite deposits, to dissolve them, and then to bring the carbonate cations to the surface where they can combine with CO2 in the surface waters of the ocean. There is no hope, says McElroy, that this process will take place fast enough to help control the build-up of CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Ocean's Carbon Balance : Feature Articles

The idea seemed simple enough: the more carbon dioxide that people pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the more the oceans would absorb. The ocean would continue to soak up more and more carbon dioxide until global warming heated the ocean enough to slow down ocean circulation. Water trapped at the surface would become saturated, at which point, the ocean would slow its carbon uptake. To oceanographers of 30 years ago, the question was less, how will human emissions change the ocean carbon cycle, and more, is the ocean carbon cycle changing yet?

 

[Old Rocks]

Earth's oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists to be published August 2 in the journal Nature.

Read more at: Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people: study

 

[SSDD]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

 

[Abraham3]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Only an idiot...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

If the oceans were a net source, they'd be growing LESS acidic.

 

[SSDD]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Only an idiot...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

If the oceans were a net source, they'd be growing LESS acidic.

So you know exactly how much CO2 is being introduced into the oceans from undersea volcanic activity?

 

[Politico]

I do. The same amount that always has. And man ain't got noting to do with it.

 

[Abraham3]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Only an idiot...

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

If the oceans were a net source, they'd be growing LESS acidic.

So you know exactly how much CO2 is being introduced into the oceans from undersea volcanic activity?

Volcanoes? Are you kidding? Why don't you tell us about the supernatural flatulence of Santa's reindeer? Volcanic emissions are dwarfed by human emissions - a fact I'm quite certain you already knew. But if you're really stupid enough to think otherwise, I suggest you investigate before you post and embarrass yourself. And after that you could try to explain what's making your degassing ocean more acidic each year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Only an idiot...

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

If the oceans were a net source, they'd be growing LESS acidic.

AGW is one Big Lie after another

The Oceans aren't more acidic. That's just another in a long series of Climate lies

 

[Old Rocks]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Only an idiot...

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

If the oceans were a net source, they'd be growing LESS acidic.

So you know exactly how much CO2 is being introduced into the oceans from undersea volcanic activity?

According the USGS, damned little compared to what mankind is putting out;

USGS Release: Human Activities Produce More Carbon Dioxide Emissions Than Do Volcanoes (6/14/2011 11:30:00 AM)

VANCOUVER, Wash. — On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. This is one of the messages detailed in a new article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" by Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey appearing in this week's issue of Eos, from the American Geophysical Union.

"The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is 'Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities?' Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this question is "No"—anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions," said Gerlach.

Gerlach looked at five published studies of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions that give a range of results from a minimum of about one tenth of a billion, to a maximum of about half a billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Gerlach used the figure of about one-quarter of a billion metric tons of volcanic CO2 per year to make his comparisons. The published projected anthropogenic CO2 emission rate for 2010 is about 35 billion metric tons per year.

Gerlach's calculations suggest present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions per year. Supereruptions are extremely rare with recurrence intervals of 100,000-200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being the Toba eruption 74,000 years ago in Indonesia and the Yellowstone caldera eruption in the United States 2 million years ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocallythat the answer to this frequently askedquestion is human activities. However,
most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology,are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforcedthe belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

 

[Old Rocks]

Article vs peer review...Peer review still wins. Oceans are a net source of CO2...Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

Maybe you idiots don't know what net source means. Net source means that it is outgassing more than it is absorbing. The small bit of CO2 that man adds to the total budget could easily be absorbed while still outgassing more.

Only an idiot...

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

If the oceans were a net source, they'd be growing LESS acidic.

AGW is one Big Lie after another

The Oceans aren't more acidic. That's just another in a long series of Climate lies

Polar Regions: The Arctic - Ocean Acidification

The Arctic Ocean, covering an area of over 14,056,000 km2, may be one of the world's oceans most vulnerable to climate change. With a fairly constant water temperature of 0°C, the Arctic has the ability to absorb carbon dioxide more readily than warmer waters. Ocean acidification may be occurring faster at the poles than other climate regions for several reasons:

Cold water more readily absorbs CO2, lowering the pH,
Added melt-water and increased riverine input is forcing additional uptake of CO2,
Reduced sea-ice coverage results in more seawater exposure to and uptake of atmospheric CO2, and
Expanded ocean-surface area may in turn alter the production and decomposition of organic carbon, a complex process that plays an important role in ocean chemistry.
Our data from 2010 and 2011 cruises show large areas of the Canada Basin which are already undersaturated with respect to aragonite—a shell forming mineral important to growth and survival of important food web organisms, like pteropods.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working with partners to measure baseline seawater chemistry of the Arctic Ocean and to improve understanding of ocean acidification in polar regions.

 

[Old Rocks]

USGS Release: Unprecedented Rate and Scale of Ocean Acidification Found in the Arctic (9/11/2013 5:30:00 PM)

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Acidification of the Arctic Ocean is occurring faster than projected according to new findings published in the journal PLOS ONE. The increase in rate is being blamed on rapidly melting sea ice, a process that may have important consequences for health of the Arctic ecosystem.

Ocean acidification is the process by which pH levels of seawater decrease due to greater amounts of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the oceans from the atmosphere. Currently oceans absorb about one-fourth of the greenhouse gas. Lower pH levels make water more acidic and lab studies have shown that more acidic water decrease calcification rates in many calcifying organisms, reducing their ability to build shells or skeletons. These changes, in species ranging from corals to shrimp, have the potential to impact species up and down the food web.

The team of federal and university researchers found that the decline of sea ice in the Arctic summer has important consequences for the surface layer of the Arctic Ocean. As sea ice cover recedes to record lows, as it did late in the summer of 2012, the seawater beneath is exposed to carbon dioxide, which is the main driver of ocean acidification.