Oceans will be drastically different by 2100

[orogenicman]

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE?????

What are you --- whining children? Should we still doing lobotomies to cure schizophrenia????

Sorry man -- but flawed theories are NOT allowed to stand if you SHOW they are flawed.
Getter a BETTER explanation for the data has NEVER been a prereq for blowing up a theory.

I've do that to MYSELF every time I attempt to solve a particular nasty problem. Do I OWE myself a better A BETTER solution before I chuck a faulty one?

Both of you need to grow up and accept the scientific method.

Excuse me? All scientific theories are, by definition, flawed. That doesn't mean that on the whole, they are not valid. Furthermore, if science is the search for truth in the natural world, then simply "blowing up a theory" (something you have not actually done here, by the way) is not enough, is NEVER enough, and never has been. Otherwise, there would be hundreds of years worth of data sitting there unexplained. Secondly, one would think that if YOU had actually refuted a scientific theory that you would be the first to try to publish a better alternative (after all, there is a lot of prestige in doing so, in being the first). Of course, we are talking about you, and not something a real scientist would do, and so no doubt, making a fool of yourself is something you apparently prefer over and above the search for the truth. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

Well duhhh. Dont need certifiably certain. Id settle for mildly accurate and comprehensive.

And ive told you before. There is no requirement in the science biz to provide an alternative theory before you take weed whacker to an existing one...
Can I just assume that you will NEVER understand that concept no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

What data? Computer models are not data. When will you people learn this fact?

Where in my post did I refer to computer models? Data, dude. Temperature databases, ice cores, tree ring data, global ghg measurements etc, etc, etc. Data. The data is still there waiting to be explained. So? Get with it: 'Splain it, Lucy.

 

[orogenicman]

BTW:: In terms of this thread --- I've given you a half dozen good reasons why this OA theory is flawed IN ITS PREDICTIONS.. It's not a denial of the physics or the chemistry -- but a USE of the physics and chemistry and biology to show that the EFFECT is less than the zealots speculated..

Same with AGW -- I've stated a position a DOZEN times to most of you. Yet I bet that neither PMZ or Oroman or ANY of the warmers can restate my position on AGW correctly..

So --- why should I BOTHER elaborating on a position that NONE OF YOU have the LEAST BIT of interest in hearing?? I attempted to do that several times before and NOT ONE OF YOU could answer my questions or understand the principles involved.. I owe YOU in particular --- really not much. Only to the extent that YOU contribute meaty critique and insight to that discussion..

AnyONE????

Yes, you have stated your delusions of grandeur to us many times. But why should we respond to them other than to offer our condolences to you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry, this is unacceptable. It isn't enough to dethrone a scientific paradigm. At the end of the day, the data still has to be explained. And that means that you must offer an alternative that better explains said data. In other words, if not AGW, then what? Do you have ANYTHING like this? Anything at all?

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE?????

What are you --- whining children? Should we still doing lobotomies to cure schizophrenia????

Sorry man -- but flawed theories are NOT allowed to stand if you SHOW they are flawed.
Getter a BETTER explanation for the data has NEVER been a prereq for blowing up a theory.

I've do that to MYSELF every time I attempt to solve a particular nasty problem. Do I OWE myself a better A BETTER solution before I chuck a faulty one?

Both of you need to grow up and accept the scientific method.

Excuse me? All scientific theories are, by definition, flawed. That doesn't mean that on the whole, they are not valid. Furthermore, if science is the search for truth in the natural world, then simply "blowing up a theory" (something you have not actually done here, by the way) is not enough, is NEVER enough, and never has been. Otherwise, there would be hundreds of years worth of data sitting there unexplained. Secondly, one would think that if YOU had actually refuted a scientific theory that you would be the first to try to publish a better alternative (after all, there is a lot of prestige in doing so, in being the first). Of course, we are talking about you, and not something a real scientist would do, and so no doubt, making a fool of yourself is something you apparently prefer over and above the search for the truth. Congratulations.

Well get busy.. Granny needs a new theory..

You've not changed the way the biz works with ANY of your emotional args here.
Sometimes theories destroy themselves --- doesn't take much work to discredit a damaged theory and nobody remembers the guys who took the hammer and stakes away from the lobotomists.

There simply IS NO OBLIGATION to REPLACE a theory if you contributed to its demise.
Plenty of geeky guys with too much self-esteem waiting to pounce on it..

SECONDLY --as in the case of the Hockey Stick.. The downfalls were statistics and tree rings and bad cutting and pasting of poor proxies. The guys who ADDRESS those fatal faults just maybe aren't the guys to redo the entire work..

Keep up the personal attacks. It makes this place that much more pleasant. It's not that I CANT respond in kind -- trust me..

 

[orogenicman]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

No, flac DID demonstrate it. All you've demonstrated is a scientific knowledge base less than my 7 year old daughter.

Perhaps it is your seven year old daughter we should be having this conversation with since obviously you cannot handle the topic.

 

[orogenicman]

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE?????

What are you --- whining children? Should we still doing lobotomies to cure schizophrenia????

Sorry man -- but flawed theories are NOT allowed to stand if you SHOW they are flawed.
Getter a BETTER explanation for the data has NEVER been a prereq for blowing up a theory.

I've do that to MYSELF every time I attempt to solve a particular nasty problem. Do I OWE myself a better A BETTER solution before I chuck a faulty one?

Both of you need to grow up and accept the scientific method.

Excuse me? All scientific theories are, by definition, flawed. That doesn't mean that on the whole, they are not valid. Furthermore, if science is the search for truth in the natural world, then simply "blowing up a theory" (something you have not actually done here, by the way) is not enough, is NEVER enough, and never has been. Otherwise, there would be hundreds of years worth of data sitting there unexplained. Secondly, one would think that if YOU had actually refuted a scientific theory that you would be the first to try to publish a better alternative (after all, there is a lot of prestige in doing so, in being the first). Of course, we are talking about you, and not something a real scientist would do, and so no doubt, making a fool of yourself is something you apparently prefer over and above the search for the truth. Congratulations.

Well get busy.. Granny needs a new theory..

You've not changed the way the biz works with ANY of your emotional args here.
Sometimes theories destroy themselves --- doesn't take much work to discredit a damaged theory and nobody remembers the guys who took the hammer and stakes away from the lobotomists.

There simply IS NO OBLIGATION to REPLACE a theory if you contributed to its demise.
Plenty of geeky guys with too much self-esteem waiting to pounce on it..

SECONDLY --as in the case of the Hockey Stick.. The downfalls were statistics and tree rings and bad cutting and pasting of poor proxies. The guys who ADDRESS those fatal faults just maybe aren't the guys to redo the entire work..

Keep up the personal attacks. It makes this place that much more pleasant. It's not that I CANT respond in kind -- trust me..

Name one scientific theory that has been "destroyed" in the past 100 years. Just one, dude. Furthermore, if it doesn't take much work to "destroy" a "damaged" theory, and you have apparently claimed to have already done this with regard to AGW (though, interestingly, no one in the scientific community is aware of your outstanding breakthrough), then why are you still here? After all, you've already done what you set out to do, and see no need to explain the mountain of data that has been left high and dry by your, ahem, genius, right?

 

[flacaltenn]

How about an example of why you're not obliged to provide a better theory..

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation


Read more at Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net

So exactly HOW LONG did it take to sort thru ALTERNATIVE THEORIES FROM MULTIPLE PLAYERS???

Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Mikhail Lomonosov attempted to repeat Robert Boyle's celebrated experiment[clarification needed] in 1753 and concluded that the phlogiston theory was false. He wrote in his diary:[citation needed]

Today I made an experiment in hermetic glass vessels in order to determine whether the mass of metals increases from the action of pure heat. The experiment demonstrated that the famous Robert Boyle was deluded, for without access of air from outside, the mass of the burnt metal remains the same.

Some phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on the Archimedean principle and the densities of magnesium and its combustion product shows that just being lighter than air cannot account for the increase in mass.

During the eighteenth century, as it became clear that metals gained weight when they were oxidized, phlogiston was increasingly regarded as a principle rather than a material substance.[7] By the end of the eighteenth century, for the few chemists who still used the term phlogiston,

Did Lomonosov RUSH to conclusions? Did he feel obliged to solve the alternate explanation of the data?
What theory REPLACED phlogiston IMMEDIATELY after Lomonosov DISPROVED the "deluded" Mr. Boyle.

Didya note how vicious THAT lab note was???? Gotta have a thick skin to "have a theory"..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:: In terms of this thread --- I've given you a half dozen good reasons why this OA theory is flawed IN ITS PREDICTIONS.. It's not a denial of the physics or the chemistry -- but a USE of the physics and chemistry and biology to show that the EFFECT is less than the zealots speculated..

Same with AGW -- I've stated a position a DOZEN times to most of you. Yet I bet that neither PMZ or Oroman or ANY of the warmers can restate my position on AGW correctly..

So --- why should I BOTHER elaborating on a position that NONE OF YOU have the LEAST BIT of interest in hearing?? I attempted to do that several times before and NOT ONE OF YOU could answer my questions or understand the principles involved.. I owe YOU in particular --- really not much. Only to the extent that YOU contribute meaty critique and insight to that discussion..

AnyONE????

Yes, you have stated your delusions of grandeur to us many times. But why should we respond to them other than to offer our condolences to you?

Well shit man.. I was hopin that just ONE OF YOU would display some actual KNOWLEDGE on the topic and decide to discuss my "delusions".. Sadly --- I've come to the conclusion --- that there simply isn't a lot of credible knowledge from the Warmer Bench on the topics here.. Am I wrong?

Yep --- I guess I was too optimistic about getting a well deserved whooping.. Feel free to take a swing at it.. Or you can just stay on the cheerleading squad..

How about this one from a couple pages back???

You cannot contend that ocean surface warming is a valid positive feedback for Global Warming (because it DECREASES the uptake of CO2 into the oceans) AND at the same time contend that CO2 uptake will continue unabated to create a serious OA problem.

Or you could help ole Abraham and pick another one of those COMPREHENSIVE and SIGNIFICANT references on OA he offered.
Abe got tired of actually LEARNING anything about them after the first 3 turned out not to be the weapon he needed.

Crickets eh?
That's why you hate me eh?? Good for you.... Congrats. Carry on..

 

[orogenicman]

How about an example of why you're not obliged to provide a better theory..

I am not obliged to offer a better theory because there is no better theory for our current climate predicament, in my opinion, than AGW.

First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation


Read more at Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net

So exactly HOW LONG did it take to sort thru ALTERNATIVE THEORIES FROM MULTIPLE PLAYERS???

Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Mikhail Lomonosov attempted to repeat Robert Boyle's celebrated experiment[clarification needed] in 1753 and concluded that the phlogiston theory was false. He wrote in his diary:[citation needed]

Today I made an experiment in hermetic glass vessels in order to determine whether the mass of metals increases from the action of pure heat. The experiment demonstrated that the famous Robert Boyle was deluded, for without access of air from outside, the mass of the burnt metal remains the same.

Some phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on the Archimedean principle and the densities of magnesium and its combustion product shows that just being lighter than air cannot account for the increase in mass.

During the eighteenth century, as it became clear that metals gained weight when they were oxidized, phlogiston was increasingly regarded as a principle rather than a material substance.[7] By the end of the eighteenth century, for the few chemists who still used the term phlogiston,

Did Lomonosov RUSH to conclusions? Did he feel obliged to solve the alternate explanation of the data?
What theory REPLACED phlogiston IMMEDIATELY after Lomonosov DISPROVED the "deluded" Mr. Boyle.

Didya note how vicious THAT lab note was???? Gotta have a thick skin to "have a theory"..

Erm, that is your response to my request that you name one scientific theory that has been "destroyed" in the past 100 years? Really? REALLY? Perhaps you should try again, and this time name one that has been "destroyed" in the last 100 YEARS!

 

[orogenicman]

BTW:: In terms of this thread --- I've given you a half dozen good reasons why this OA theory is flawed IN ITS PREDICTIONS.. It's not a denial of the physics or the chemistry -- but a USE of the physics and chemistry and biology to show that the EFFECT is less than the zealots speculated..

Same with AGW -- I've stated a position a DOZEN times to most of you. Yet I bet that neither PMZ or Oroman or ANY of the warmers can restate my position on AGW correctly..

So --- why should I BOTHER elaborating on a position that NONE OF YOU have the LEAST BIT of interest in hearing?? I attempted to do that several times before and NOT ONE OF YOU could answer my questions or understand the principles involved.. I owe YOU in particular --- really not much. Only to the extent that YOU contribute meaty critique and insight to that discussion..

AnyONE????

Yes, you have stated your delusions of grandeur to us many times. But why should we respond to them other than to offer our condolences to you?

Well shit man.. I was hopin that just ONE OF YOU would display some actual KNOWLEDGE on the topic and decide to discuss my "delusions".. Sadly --- I've come to the conclusion --- that there simply isn't a lot of credible knowledge from the Warmer Bench on the topics here.. Am I wrong?

Yep --- I guess I was too optimistic about getting a well deserved whooping.. Feel free to take a swing at it.. Or you can just stay on the cheerleading squad..

How about this one from a couple pages back???

You cannot contend that ocean surface warming is a valid positive feedback for Global Warming (because it DECREASES the uptake of CO2 into the oceans) AND at the same time contend that CO2 uptake will continue unabated to create a serious OA problem.

Or you could help ole Abraham and pick another one of those COMPREHENSIVE and SIGNIFICANT references on OA he offered.
Abe got tired of actually LEARNING anything about them after the first 3 turned out not to be the weapon he needed.

Crickets eh?
That's why you hate me eh?? Good for you.... Congrats. Carry on..

Dude, if you are hearing crickets, it is because everyone has left you sitting alone in your rubber room. And for the record, I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone.

As for CO2 uptake into the oceans, it is true that CO2 tends to form carbonates in warmer seas, which then precipitate out as lime muds, which then through the process of diagenesis forms limestone, but that only occurs if calcium at or near saturation levels in those warmer waters, and it happens over a relatively long period of time. That said, cold oceanic water has no problem absorbing lots of CO2 and we are seeing abundant evidence that that is occurring in the northern and southern oceans at high latitudes. In fact, it has been suggested in several studies that the southern ocean, which is a huge carbon sink, is nearing CO2 saturation.

 

[flacaltenn]

How about an example of why you're not obliged to provide a better theory..

I am not obliged to offer a better theory because there is no better theory for our current climate predicament, in my opinion, than AGW.

So exactly HOW LONG did it take to sort thru ALTERNATIVE THEORIES FROM MULTIPLE PLAYERS???

Phlogiston theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Mikhail Lomonosov attempted to repeat Robert Boyle's celebrated experiment[clarification needed] in 1753 and concluded that the phlogiston theory was false. He wrote in his diary:[citation needed]

Today I made an experiment in hermetic glass vessels in order to determine whether the mass of metals increases from the action of pure heat. The experiment demonstrated that the famous Robert Boyle was deluded, for without access of air from outside, the mass of the burnt metal remains the same.

Some phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on the Archimedean principle and the densities of magnesium and its combustion product shows that just being lighter than air cannot account for the increase in mass.

During the eighteenth century, as it became clear that metals gained weight when they were oxidized, phlogiston was increasingly regarded as a principle rather than a material substance.[7] By the end of the eighteenth century, for the few chemists who still used the term phlogiston,

Did Lomonosov RUSH to conclusions? Did he feel obliged to solve the alternate explanation of the data?
What theory REPLACED phlogiston IMMEDIATELY after Lomonosov DISPROVED the "deluded" Mr. Boyle.

Didya note how vicious THAT lab note was???? Gotta have a thick skin to "have a theory"..

Erm, that is your response to my request that you name one scientific theory that has been "destroyed" in the past 100 years? Really? REALLY? Perhaps you should try again, and this time name one that has been "destroyed" in the last 100 YEARS!

No I was compiling that example whilst you were typing your challenge. Im feeling pretty jilted by always having folks ppass on my questions and challenges.. If I couldnt answer your question ----- would thhis be where I switch to mocking your intellect and rehash the personal attacks? Just curious as how you think this should work.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, you have stated your delusions of grandeur to us many times. But why should we respond to them other than to offer our condolences to you?

Well shit man.. I was hopin that just ONE OF YOU would display some actual KNOWLEDGE on the topic and decide to discuss my "delusions".. Sadly --- I've come to the conclusion --- that there simply isn't a lot of credible knowledge from the Warmer Bench on the topics here.. Am I wrong?

Yep --- I guess I was too optimistic about getting a well deserved whooping.. Feel free to take a swing at it.. Or you can just stay on the cheerleading squad..

How about this one from a couple pages back???

You cannot contend that ocean surface warming is a valid positive feedback for Global Warming (because it DECREASES the uptake of CO2 into the oceans) AND at the same time contend that CO2 uptake will continue unabated to create a serious OA problem.

Or you could help ole Abraham and pick another one of those COMPREHENSIVE and SIGNIFICANT references on OA he offered.
Abe got tired of actually LEARNING anything about them after the first 3 turned out not to be the weapon he needed.

Crickets eh?
That's why you hate me eh?? Good for you.... Congrats. Carry on..

Dude, if you are hearing crickets, it is because everyone has left you sitting alone in your rubber room. And for the record, I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone.

As for CO2 uptake into the oceans, it is true that CO2 tends to form carbonates in warmer seas, which then precipitate out as lime muds, which then through the process of diagenesis forms limestone, but that only occurs if calcium at or near saturation levels in those warmer waters, and it happens over a relatively long period of time. That said, cold oceanic water has no problem absorbing lots of CO2 and we are seeing abundant evidence that that is occurring in the northern and southern oceans at high latitudes. In fact, it has been suggested in several studies that the southern ocean, which is a huge carbon sink, is nearing CO2 saturation.

A freakin miracle... An on topic response. Mark the date.

Actually its a simple matter of the capacity of colder water to contain more Co2. But ok. Your observations were good.
What about the conflicting evidence and predictions? If more surface heating reduces the uptake of co2 significantly enough to accelerate atmos accumulations, how is it also likely to have run-away OA effects with all those wild ass pH predictions?

 

[orogenicman]

How about an example of why you're not obliged to provide a better theory..

I am not obliged to offer a better theory because there is no better theory for our current climate predicament, in my opinion, than AGW.

So exactly HOW LONG did it take to sort thru ALTERNATIVE THEORIES FROM MULTIPLE PLAYERS???


Did Lomonosov RUSH to conclusions? Did he feel obliged to solve the alternate explanation of the data?
What theory REPLACED phlogiston IMMEDIATELY after Lomonosov DISPROVED the "deluded" Mr. Boyle.

Didya note how vicious THAT lab note was???? Gotta have a thick skin to "have a theory"..

Erm, that is your response to my request that you name one scientific theory that has been "destroyed" in the past 100 years? Really? REALLY? Perhaps you should try again, and this time name one that has been "destroyed" in the last 100 YEARS!

No I was compiling that example whilst you were typing your challenge. Im feeling pretty jilted by always having folks ppass on my questions and challenges.. If I couldnt answer your question ----- would thhis be where I switch to mocking your intellect and rehash the personal attacks? Just curious as how you think this should work.

That is apparently where you went since you still have not cited a single scientific theory that has been overthrown in the past 100 years.

 

[orogenicman]

Well shit man.. I was hopin that just ONE OF YOU would display some actual KNOWLEDGE on the topic and decide to discuss my "delusions".. Sadly --- I've come to the conclusion --- that there simply isn't a lot of credible knowledge from the Warmer Bench on the topics here.. Am I wrong?

Yep --- I guess I was too optimistic about getting a well deserved whooping.. Feel free to take a swing at it.. Or you can just stay on the cheerleading squad..

How about this one from a couple pages back???

You cannot contend that ocean surface warming is a valid positive feedback for Global Warming (because it DECREASES the uptake of CO2 into the oceans) AND at the same time contend that CO2 uptake will continue unabated to create a serious OA problem.

Or you could help ole Abraham and pick another one of those COMPREHENSIVE and SIGNIFICANT references on OA he offered.
Abe got tired of actually LEARNING anything about them after the first 3 turned out not to be the weapon he needed.

Crickets eh?
That's why you hate me eh?? Good for you.... Congrats. Carry on..

Dude, if you are hearing crickets, it is because everyone has left you sitting alone in your rubber room. And for the record, I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone.

As for CO2 uptake into the oceans, it is true that CO2 tends to form carbonates in warmer seas, which then precipitate out as lime muds, which then through the process of diagenesis forms limestone, but that only occurs if calcium at or near saturation levels in those warmer waters, and it happens over a relatively long period of time. That said, cold oceanic water has no problem absorbing lots of CO2 and we are seeing abundant evidence that that is occurring in the northern and southern oceans at high latitudes. In fact, it has been suggested in several studies that the southern ocean, which is a huge carbon sink, is nearing CO2 saturation.

A freakin miracle... An on topic response. Mark the date.

Actually its a simple matter of the capacity of colder water to contain more Co2. But ok. Your observations were good.
What about the conflicting evidence and predictions? If more surface heating reduces the uptake of co2 significantly enough to accelerate atmos accumulations, how is it also likely to have run-away OA effects with all those wild ass pH predictions?

It doesn't reduce the uptake so much as increase the ability of carbonate to precipitate out of solution, which is the most important part of the stoichiometry.. What that means in a low calcium water environment is that CO2 remains in the water instead of precipitating out. After all, once the calcium has precipitated out, the CO2 has nowhere to go, particularly if CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is high. And that is not much of a problem as long as CO2 in the atmosphere remains steady. However, if the levels in the atmosphere increase, then the system is out of balance and will absorb into the ocean. That said, regardless of whether or not the oceans are warm (they certainly are in the tropics and subtropics), at high latitudes is where ocean waters are much colder, we are seeing a huge uptake of CO2 in ocean waters, particularly in the southern ocean. That acidic water then gets transported via oceanic circulation to other regions, eventually even to regions where the water is warmer. Even at lower latitudes, we are seeing an increase in CO2 in the oceans. By the way, ocean pH measurements are not predictions - they are measurements. One can make such predictions, however, based on trends in those readings. The trend has been towards ocean acidity. This is not in question. The numbers are there for all to see.

Can you see a trend in these measurements? I can.

 

[IanC]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

PMZ - you are the one who has demonstrated a lack of any understanding of statistics.

even though some of the warmers here, like abraham and itfitzme, are confused about statistics at least they are working from a base of some statistical knowledge. as some famous physicist (Pauli, Heisenberg?) said, "you arent correct. you're not even wrong".

there has been a brouhaha in the british parliament for the last few months over the Met Office answering whether the warming over the last hundred years is significant. time series statistics is a trecherous pond to wade in, especially when climate scientists are so loathe to seek out advice from statisticians. the same weakness in Slingo's multiple answers, which have steadily backtracked from definitely significant to we can't tell for sure, are also present in the IPCC report. one chapter says significant (95% certain human caused no less), while another chapter states large uncertainty.

 

[orogenicman]

Ian, you aren't really surprised that the British parliament has brouhahas, are you? It could be about the color of Dorothy's ruby slippers, and the political ruckus would be the same.

 

[PMZ]

I've also DEMONSTRATED to you where the IPCC has lied and skewed results AGAINST the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.. And NOT ONE OF YOU could refute that..

You have not. You have demonstrated a lack of statistical knowledge.

PMZ - you are the one who has demonstrated a lack of any understanding of statistics.

even though some of the warmers here, like abraham and itfitzme, are confused about statistics at least they are working from a base of some statistical knowledge. as some famous physicist (Pauli, Heisenberg?) said, "you arent correct. you're not even wrong".

there has been a brouhaha in the british parliament for the last few months over the Met Office answering whether the warming over the last hundred years is significant. time series statistics is a trecherous pond to wade in, especially when climate scientists are so loathe to seek out advice from statisticians. the same weakness in Slingo's multiple answers, which have steadily backtracked from definitely significant to we can't tell for sure, are also present in the IPCC report. one chapter says significant (95% certain human caused no less), while another chapter states large uncertainty.

I'm waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.

I think that the problem with the IPCC is that their sponsors, politicians, want them to act political. And they try by dumbing down the science.

In the absence of the alternative theory above, I believe that the truth is unquestionable.

 

[flacaltenn]

I am not obliged to offer a better theory because there is no better theory for our current climate predicament, in my opinion, than AGW.





Erm, that is your response to my request that you name one scientific theory that has been "destroyed" in the past 100 years? Really? REALLY? Perhaps you should try again, and this time name one that has been "destroyed" in the last 100 YEARS!

No I was compiling that example whilst you were typing your challenge. Im feeling pretty jilted by always having folks ppass on my questions and challenges.. If I couldnt answer your question ----- would thhis be where I switch to mocking your intellect and rehash the personal attacks? Just curious as how you think this should work.

That is apparently where you went since you still have not cited a single scientific theory that has been overthrown in the past 100 years.

I'm ignoring you because I already did.. Many posts ago.. But as usual -- nobody ever stays with the topic... Can give you many others -- but I work too hard already..

 

[PMZ]

No I was compiling that example whilst you were typing your challenge. Im feeling pretty jilted by always having folks ppass on my questions and challenges.. If I couldnt answer your question ----- would thhis be where I switch to mocking your intellect and rehash the personal attacks? Just curious as how you think this should work.

That is apparently where you went since you still have not cited a single scientific theory that has been overthrown in the past 100 years.

I'm ignoring you because I already did.. Many posts ago.. But as usual -- nobody ever stays with the topic... Can give you many others -- but I work too hard already..

Where does the excess energy go? Physics says it goes to restoring the conservation of global energy by increasing TOA temperatures and therefore out going radiation.

What's your theory?

 

[flacaltenn]

Dude, if you are hearing crickets, it is because everyone has left you sitting alone in your rubber room. And for the record, I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone.

As for CO2 uptake into the oceans, it is true that CO2 tends to form carbonates in warmer seas, which then precipitate out as lime muds, which then through the process of diagenesis forms limestone, but that only occurs if calcium at or near saturation levels in those warmer waters, and it happens over a relatively long period of time. That said, cold oceanic water has no problem absorbing lots of CO2 and we are seeing abundant evidence that that is occurring in the northern and southern oceans at high latitudes. In fact, it has been suggested in several studies that the southern ocean, which is a huge carbon sink, is nearing CO2 saturation.

A freakin miracle... An on topic response. Mark the date.

Actually its a simple matter of the capacity of colder water to contain more Co2. But ok. Your observations were good.
What about the conflicting evidence and predictions? If more surface heating reduces the uptake of co2 significantly enough to accelerate atmos accumulations, how is it also likely to have run-away OA effects with all those wild ass pH predictions?

It doesn't reduce the uptake so much as increase the ability of carbonate to precipitate out of solution, which is the most important part of the stoichiometry.. What that means in a low calcium water environment is that CO2 remains in the water instead of precipitating out. After all, once the calcium has precipitated out, the CO2 has nowhere to go, particularly if CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is high. And that is not much of a problem as long as CO2 in the atmosphere remains steady. However, if the levels in the atmosphere increase, then the system is out of balance and will absorb into the ocean. That said, regardless of whether or not the oceans are warm (they certainly are in the tropics and subtropics), at high latitudes is where ocean waters are much colder, we are seeing a huge uptake of CO2 in ocean waters, particularly in the southern ocean. That acidic water then gets transported via oceanic circulation to other regions, eventually even to regions where the water is warmer. Even at lower latitudes, we are seeing an increase in CO2 in the oceans. By the way, ocean pH measurements are not predictions - they are measurements. One can make such predictions, however, based on trends in those readings. The trend has been towards ocean acidity. This is not in question. The numbers are there for all to see.

Can you see a trend in these measurements? I can.

Your ability to "see a trend" is probably aided by the convienient choice of dual Y axis scaling. But nonetheless, WHILST the oceans continue to be a NET sink --- all that is true..
I'm referring to the dire HYSTERICAL predictions by your Prophets that this will CEASE in the near future because of SURFACE WARMING..

You have properly described and are fixated on ONE ASPECT of the ocean chemistry. The part known as the "bio-pump" that sends calcium carbonate to the deep. But the OTHER SIDE of that chemistry is the simple SOLUBILITY of CO2 due to temperature. And YOUR SIDE is SCREAMING that this will bring the OCEAN'S ability to absorb CO2 to its fucking knees..

How about "thinkprogress" (or actually nationalgeo --- take your pick)

Climate Change Reducing Ocean's Carbon Dioxide Uptake | ThinkProgress

Climate Change Reducing Ocean’s Carbon Dioxide Uptake
By Joe Romm on July 12, 2011 at 7:16 pm

“The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere,” says [Galen] McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research


We now know that as the ocean warms up, its ability to act as a carbon “sink” is diminishing. We are seeing a dangerous, amplifying carbon-cycle feedback.

The study’s news release explains:

As one of the planet’s largest single carbon absorbers, the ocean takes up roughly one-third of all human carbon emissions, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and its associated global changes.

But “whether the ocean can continue mopping up human-produced carbon at the same rate” wasn’t entirely clear. “Previous studies on the topic have yielded conflicting results.”

Back in 2007, I reported that the long-feared saturation of one the world’s primary carbon sinks had apparently started.

OR AT

Climate change reducing ocean's carbon dioxide uptake (July 13, 2011)

Now I happen to know that BETTER SCIENCE than this exists in the literature.. Where some researchers have done more complete carbon cycle modeling and found that the "bio-pump" will somewhat compensate for the "saturation" and "solubility" problems. But what your Church is passing off on the press is stuff like this...

Ocean Losing Its Appetite for Carbon

The world's oceans, which normally gobble up carbon dioxide, are getting stuffed to the gills, according to the most thorough study to date of human-made carbon in the seas.

Between 2000 and 2007, as emissions of the potent greenhouse gas carbon dioxide skyrocketed, the amount of human-made carbon absorbed by the oceans fell from 27 to 24 percent.

In terms of ocean processes, "that's a pretty large drop, and the trend is pretty clear: The ocean can't keep up with [human-made carbon]," said study leader Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. For their study, Khatiwala and colleagues collected data on seawater temperature and salinity recorded from 1765 to 2008.

But in recent decades the rate of absorption has declined, and the reasons for the slowdown are still unclear.

It might have something to do with increased carbon dioxide emissions making seawater more acidic, the authors say. That's because more acidic waters are less able to dissolve carbon dioxide.

Likewise, carbon dioxide can't dissolve as easily in warmer water—which is why about 40 percent of past carbon emissions were absorbed into the chilly oceans off Antarctica, according to the study, published tomorrow in the journal Nature.

Really pressed for time today.. GTG. But would like to continue..

My point here is that you CANNOT have both.. Either the CO2 feedback mechanism exists BECAUSE the oceans will reject more and more CO2 ---- OR ----- that CO2 will cause increasing amounts of Ocean Acidification..

BTW: If the good science prevails and the "bio-pump" takes up the slack --- than OA is also less of a eco-problem..

You need to THROTTLE the press release machinery.. It's doing a great disservice to your cause with all the hype and speculation.