Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Billy_Bob]

I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists. Piss off russia!

View attachment 269149

Yes, I just can’t take flat earthers seriously. Or people who deny evolution. Retards not to be taken seriously

I cant take non-thinking idiots like you seriously.... You refuse to even look at real science presented..

 

[SSDD]

Link the study that shows an equal amount of energy escaping Venus as it receives. Be my guest. You, by the way, have simply dodged my question. Show me a graph that shows that when you compress co2 to 1384 Psi you get an increase in temperature of 700 degrees F

It isn't as if this were secret information..it is easily accessible what with the venus probes gathering all that information...but sure...here is a paper that provides the incoming and outgoing radiation budget for venus...

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~espoclass/ASTR_5835_2015_Readings_Notes/Titov_Et_Al-EVTP.pdf

Clip:

Observations by the pioneer Venus and Venera orbiters and descent probes provided a substantial amount of infor- mation about scattering and absorbing properties of the Venus atmosphere. Several comprehensive radiative transfer models consistent with the data were developed at that time (Tomasko et al., 1980a,b; 1985). The authors calculated the global balance of radiative energy and solar heating rates in the atmosphere. The total solar flux at the Venus orbit is 2622± 6 W/m2 (Moroz et al., 1985). Due to its high albedo the planet absorbs only 157 ± 6 W/m2 on average, less than that deposited on Earth (~240 W/m2), despite the fact that Venus is 30% closer to the Sun. Both models and observations show that less than 10% of the total solar energy incident on Venus reaches the surface, and only 2.5% is absorbed there. The largest portion of solar energy is absorbed above 57 km by the unknown uV absorber at the cloud tops. This is in contrast with the Earth, where 74% of the solar energy is absorbed directly at the ground (Arking, 1996).

The text in red indicates the amount of solar energy that venus actually absorbs...it is a bit less than I had thought....and the amount that actually reaches the surface of venus is less than I though...and the amount that actually gets absorbed is a good bit less than I thought. That in itself is pretty clear evidence that no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science can possibly exist on venus...You think the radiation emitted by the surface which is only absorbing 2.5% of 157 W/m2 or ~5.5 watts per square meter of solar energy? really?

Then the paper continues...

Clip:
The outgoing thermal radiation has been characterized by the pioneer Venus Orbiter Infrared Radiometer and the Venera 15 Fourier transform spectrometer (Taylor et al., 1980; Oertel et al., 1987). These observations were ana-lyzed to retrieve the temperature and aerosol structure of the Venus mesosphere and to calculate the outgoing ther-mal flux (Schofield and Taylor, 1982; Zasova et al., 2007). The effective globally averaged effective temperature as measured by pioneer Venus is ~230 K which corresponds to an outgoing thermal flux of ~160 W/m2. This value is slightly different from the mean solar flux deposited on the planet but given the uncertainties in both values this discrepancy cannot be interpreted as an indication of global energy imbalance.

So the outgoing energy is measured at ~160-W/m2 compared to the 157±6 W/m2 that it actually absorbs from the sun. And do keep in mind that venus has literally thousands of active volcanoes across its surface so the amount of energy being released by those would surely cause one to expect a bit more outgoing energy than incoming.

In any event, the author states in plain language that there is no indication of a global energy imbalance which is precisely what a radiative greenhouse effect is supposed to produce...less outgoing than incoming due to the greenhouse gasses supposedly "trapping" energy within the atmosphere..

If you care to discuss why there can be no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science here on earth I would be happy to take up the discussion.

As to your questions regarding compression of gasses, you are mistaking the compression of gasses in a cylinder which quickly lose the heat that was generated during compression with the compression of gas in an atmosphere where the heat produced by compression is in constant movement.

The temperature of venus at its surface would require a solar input of about 16,000 W/m2. Clearly nothing like that amount of energy is being absorbed by the planet, and CO2 certainly isn't creating in excess of 15,000 watts per square meter of energy so something else must be responsible for the temperature.

That something else is pressure and convection. The temperature of an atmosphere is nothing more than a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gasses that make up the atmosphere.

Convection occurs in any atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is greater than 10kPa. Convection and the action of auto compression due to gravity and the weight of the atmosphere cause the potential energy to convert the internal energy within the system to kinetic energy in the 50% of the gas that is depending in the venusian atmosphere at any given time.

This happens in concurrence with the equation H=PV+u where:
H = enthalpy ( expressed as the internal energy of a system plus the product of the pressure and volume of the system, having the property that during an isobaric process, the change in the quantity is equal to the heat transferred during the process.) (J/Kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m^3)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

50% of the mass of the atmosphere of venus holds a HUGE amount of potential energy which is how the temperature that would otherwise require a solar input of about 16,000 W/m2 when the actual solar input is ~157W/m2...even less than the earth receives.

There is no greenhouse effect at work on venus, and there is no greenhouse effect at work on earth. There is an atmospheric thermal effect at work which depends on gravity, and the mass of the atmosphere. CO2 on venus, as on earth is only important in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.

 

[SSDD]

The fact that alarmist scientists fail to mention is that prior to the onset of the present ice age, practically every creature in the oceans had already evolved to its present form...at that time, the atmospheric CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm...

They had evolved to a form that tolerated the level of ocean acidity that existed at that time. And they will again.

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Sorry guy...the fact is that our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is so vanishingly small, that it is the next thing to impossible to detect...Hell, termites alone produce more CO2 than us.

 

[SSDD]

Sure, it does. That's why it's over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, while it's distance to the sun would make it at most 163 degrees Fahrenheit, without the greenhouse effect. I tell you what. Use CO2. Compress it to 1384 Psi and see if you can get it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Wich is the difference more or less between Venus temperature with or without the greenhouse effect. I know for a fact that CO2 is compressed in industry to a much higher pressure than 1348 Psi the temperature it generates doesn't even come close to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.

Once a dupe.....always a dupe apparently. Imagine...thinking a planet is a closed system...venus the energy escaping the top of the atmosphere in venus is the same as the energy it receives from the sun...We know that no energy is being "trapped" by the CO2 because the amount of energy going out is the same as the energy going in...that leaves nothing but the idea that CO2 is creating all that additional energy by itself...

What is that physical law about not being able to create or destroy energy?

Sorry guy...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion has done you a gross disservice...

Link the study that shows an equal amount of energy escaping Venus as it receives. Be my guest. You, by the way, have simply dodged my question. Show me a graph that shows that when you compress co2 to 1384 Psi you get an increase in temperature of 700 degrees F

Don't hold your breath waiting on that.

Refer above... I provided him with a paper because it is no secret...the paper makes clear that there is no energy imbalance on venus...and I went on to explain how a temperature which would require about 16,000 watts per square meter of incoming solar energy could be reached on a planet that is absorbing less solar energy than the earth...

 

[SSDD]

OK...lets continue.

Regarding his "measurements" of the thickness of the "greenhouse blanket"...what crap. Any claim of heat "trapping" ability of additional CO2, and the resulting reduction of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere come with them an inherent necessity of an upper tropospheric hot spot. If energy is being trapped in the atmosphere, then that energy will have a fingerprint in the troposphere...trapped energy will produce a hot spot according to climate science. The fact is that there is no hot spot....

And if the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were actually trapping energy, then the amount of energy leaving the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be reduced. It hasn't been. In fact, satellites have detected an increase in outgoing long wave radiation, and the increase has been going on for quite some time. Here, as measured by NOAA...

Next, your author goes into an analysis of how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere...Do keep in mind that so far, no actual evidence and not a single paper has been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses....so any effort to show our contribution to CO2 gasses as evidence that we are causing warming is nothing more than evidence of increased CO2 with a big assed assumption that more CO2 causes warming tacked on.

But lets look at the CO2 increases and our influence on them. He simply makes an assumption that we are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The actual published science tells an entirely different story. The published science says that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so vanishingly small that it is essentially undetectable in the background noise...



Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Then he goes on to note that it has warmed since the little ice age, and makes a big assed assumption that the reason that it has warmed is CO2...and as evidence that it is CO2, he points to an 18th century thought experiment... The fact is that every ice core ever done shows us that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming temperatures, not the cause...

Hell your guy even calls the output of computer models "empirical evidence" NEWSFLASH...it isn't.

Thanks for trying, but alas, there is nothing there but assumption after assumption after assumption being called empirical evidence...he does provide some actual instrumental data, but that is nothing more than evidence that he is easily fooled by instrumentation. It is in the section where he supposedly shows measurements of back radiation...energy moving from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth where said radiation actually warms the surface... Ever look at the second law of thermodynamics? Here...take a look:


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that suggests that energy will move from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth? He uses instruments that are cooled to a temperature of about -80F. He isn't measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...he is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....if you place an identical instrument with the cooling turned off right next to the cooled one, you will get no measurement of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument because according to the second law of thermodynamics (the mother of all physical laws) energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object....

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among those who believe...at least this one isn't an opinion piece from a newspaper as most provide....it is at least pseudoscience masquerading as science.....

Let's not continue. You can not make a claim about something and then continue about something else when you can't defend that claim.
You said that Venus is hot because of the pressure of its atmosphere and used gas giants to defend it. I pointed out that Jupiter's pressure to temperature is 0.0066 percent. Venus has a ratio of 64 percent.

?

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

The paper attributes rising temperature during 1985–2005 almost entirely to decreasing low cloud cover, from which it infers a very low sensitivity of climate to rising CO2.

1. Given that we have data for global climate, CO2 (from Law Dome ice cores before 1958), and total solar irradiance reconstructions, all covering the 169 years 1850–2018, the period 1985–2005 is going to contain a lot of spurious high frequency “chatter” in the signals most of which can be “tuned out” by considering far more data. When one does so, the combined influence of the sun and CO2 over 169 years explain climate far more accurately than is possible using only 20 years of data, with or without cloud cover data.
2. For the period 1985-2005 they consider three variables: rising temperature, decreasing cloud cover, and rising CO2. Noting the negative correlation between the first two, their hypothesis is that the first is almost completely explained by the second. They conclude that there is therefore no need to implicate CO2 as a causal factor: even though CO2 has risen 47% during the industrial era, they claim it has a negligible effect on climate because that rise in temperature can be almost entirely attributed to cloud cover.

This line of reasoning is patently illogical: with equal logic one could prove that cloud cover has no significant effect on climate by attributing it all to CO2. Furthermore it is based purely on correlations over a short period and not on any physical mechanism such as the greenhouse effect that can be expected to remain valid over far longer periods than a mere 20 years.
Vaughan Pratt, Since 1972 taught classes on many topics at MIT and Stanford
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Turku-...-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change

Oh really?


Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal: Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate


The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers -- sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt -- that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.

What does any of this got to do with the link you provided? It's just another link that hypothesizes something they want to study but haven't. Nothing in it even tries to deny the greenhouse effect. Just searches for another possible explanation besides man.

Wait a second the earth has been changing for 4.5 billion years , man has been driving cars for a 100 years?

Sure and earth has been both hotter and colder. I have little doubt that mankind will survive AGW. What I am less sure of is if mankind will survive AGW without severely crippling the ecosystem. That it will survive without having to take drastic measures to safeguard its cities. That it will survive without wars breaking out as resources like drinkable water get harder to come by. We are a very adaptable species and will survive, after all, we have survived worse. Surviving is not the same as thriving tough.

Human history tells us that warmer is better than cooler...we stopped being hunter gatherers and became civilization builders in temperatures far warmer than the present.

 

[SSDD]

Sure, it does. That's why it's over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, while it's distance to the sun would make it at most 163 degrees Fahrenheit, without the greenhouse effect. I tell you what. Use CO2. Compress it to 1384 Psi and see if you can get it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Wich is the difference more or less between Venus temperature with or without the greenhouse effect. I know for a fact that CO2 is compressed in industry to a much higher pressure than 1348 Psi the temperature it generates doesn't even come close to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.

Once a dupe.....always a dupe apparently. Imagine...thinking a planet is a closed system...venus the energy escaping the top of the atmosphere in venus is the same as the energy it receives from the sun...We know that no energy is being "trapped" by the CO2 because the amount of energy going out is the same as the energy going in...that leaves nothing but the idea that CO2 is creating all that additional energy by itself...

What is that physical law about not being able to create or destroy energy?

Sorry guy...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion has done you a gross disservice...

Link the study that shows an equal amount of energy escaping Venus as it receives. Be my guest. You, by the way, have simply dodged my question. Show me a graph that shows that when you compress co2 to 1384 Psi you get an increase in temperature of 700 degrees F

Don't hold your breath waiting on that.

Good thing you told me. I was turning blue.

Sorry to disappoint you...if you knew the first thing about the science that you are pretending to understand, you would have had no doubt that I could produce the information you asked for...it isn't as if it were secret...

 

[Cosmos]

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.

LOL. And why the fuck do I need to do that? It's totally irrelevant to my point which is.....when you increase atmospheric CO2 you also increase ocean acidity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.

LOL. And why the fuck do I need to do that? It's totally irrelevant to my point which is.....when you increase atmospheric CO2 you also increase ocean acidity.

1. Natural variability is responsible for 96.7% of all rise in CO2 concentration.

2. CO2 is absorbed fractionally and only where the pressures increase. The MEW and RWP both had rises in concentrations equivalent to today according to high resolution proxies.

Again, prove that man is responsible for the total rise.. We are not and its a lie to spout this crap.

 

[SSDD]

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

What is nonsense is your claims...have you never even bothered to look at the science?

Here is some science....feel free to deny all you like. It is always interesting to see who the real deniers are.

Error - Cookies Turned Off
Impact of high p CO 2 and warmer temperatures on the process of silica biomineralization in the sponge Mycale grandis
Ocean “Acidification” Alarmism in Perspective - ScienceDirect
Ocean acidification does not alter grazing in the calanoid copepods Calanus finmarchicus and Calanus glacialis
https://watermark.silverchair.com/f...uei4nXsJldug3UGmqSLTGhcWV6yVBfBxsm2Xi9OfXPuWM
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/633/2458696
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/620/2458707
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/739/2459083
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/659/2458741
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/814/2458919


If you want more, just ask....these are mostly from 2016 alone...We can go backwards or forwards...your choice...the science is what it is and the threat of ocean acidification is nothing more than alarmist handwaving hysterics...

 

[Cosmos]

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.

LOL. And why the fuck do I need to do that? It's totally irrelevant to my point which is.....when you increase atmospheric CO2 you also increase ocean acidity.

1. Natural variability is responsible for 96.7% of all rise in CO2 concentration.

2. CO2 is absorbed fractionally and only where the pressures increase. The MEW and RWP both had rises in concentrations equivalent to today according to high resolution proxies.

Again, prove that man is responsible for the total rise.. We are not and its a lie to spout this crap.

Who said man is responsible for the total rise?

 

[SSDD]

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.

LOL. And why the fuck do I need to do that? It's totally irrelevant to my point which is.....when you increase atmospheric CO2 you also increase ocean acidity.

You have yet to demonstrate that we are contributing to the total CO2 in the atmosphere in any significant way. If the earth's own CO2 making machinery is raising CO2 levels, which is what the science is finding, then we are just along for the ride..

Here are 6 or 8 papers that find that we aren't and haven't been contributing to the total atmospheric CO2 in any real way...ever... You won't find much in the alarmist literature on this topic because climate science has known all along that our contributions to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant...they were content to let politicians and environmentalist activists work you up with fairy tales about how we were responsible for the increase in CO2...and you gobbled it up..


Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

 

[SSDD]

Several studies have now disproved this.

Nonsense. Basic chemistry has not changed.

1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.

LOL. And why the fuck do I need to do that? It's totally irrelevant to my point which is.....when you increase atmospheric CO2 you also increase ocean acidity.

1. Natural variability is responsible for 96.7% of all rise in CO2 concentration.

2. CO2 is absorbed fractionally and only where the pressures increase. The MEW and RWP both had rises in concentrations equivalent to today according to high resolution proxies.

Again, prove that man is responsible for the total rise.. We are not and its a lie to spout this crap.

Who said man is responsible for the total rise?

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? If we aren't responsible, what are you crying about? Atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm in earths history and no evidence has ever been found of a run away greenhouse effect, or mass extinctions of marine life due to those concentrations...there are several examples of mass extinctions due to cold however...

 

[Cosmos]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

 

[SSDD]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Not according to the science......I just provided you with 7 published papers which find that natural variation accounts for nearly all the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Tell me, what are all the natural sources of CO2...and how much do they vary from year to year...and are you even sure that we know all the sources? Making a claim that natural processes can't account for the rise in CO2 is nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit...The natural variation in the earth's own CO2 production from year to year is more than we produce...making claims that you can't support is typical of you warmers...look through this thread...who is providing published science to support their claims, and who is just making it up as they go?

 

[SSDD]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

 

[Cosmos]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

Nope... I have actual science on my side not political pseudoscience..

Now the idiots at Mauna Loa who think monitoring CO2 a top a CO2 generating monster is stupidity of the highest magnitude. Only very stupid people or dupes could believe that you will get reliable readings at a site like this.

 

[Cosmos]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

They've been doing it over 60 years. Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that. Congrats!