how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

I'll let you eggheads hash out the technicalities of PH levels, trace elements, and theories of coral reefs.

I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.

1. A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record. We have had a satellite record for less than 35 years of the billions of years of the Earth's existence. We have been measuring surface temperatures of the oceans for only 46 years. And the fragmented records of sea captain's logs, etc. from past centuries don't fit the propaganda that arctic ice is at its lowest level ever. Nor can climate models explain how the Earth has been much cooler in the past when CO2 levels were much higher which calls into question whether CO2 levels are mostly driven by factors other than human activity.

2. Those most strongly advocating the AGW theory do not themselves demonstrate any concern for human activity and in fact live lifestyles that they condemn the rest of us for living. That alone should raise some interest re the veracity of these AGW proponents.

3. The politicans of the world are not focusing on the largest producers of CO2 in their efforts to combat this terrible catastrophe of global warming that they say is imminent. No, rather they focus on tightening the noose of authority and power around those who are already doing the best job of reducing greenouse emissions. Doesn't that give you AGW religionists even pause for thought that their motives are something different than combating climate change?

4. The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them. Shouldn't we questions how accurate they are in predicting our climate future?

5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.

While all this put together is certainly no proof that AGW is NOT happening, it sure does make a good case for a healthy skepticism about it. And I think intelligent people will want a good deal more to go on before they hand over their liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to goverments who very likely do not have their best interests in mind.

 

[polarbear]

Ian -
Other diverse responses to ocean acidification have been observed, including an increase in algal growth, the impairment of the neurological function in reef fish and reduced coral recruitment success. Importantly, the studies that showed these impacts were based on global-scale ocean chemistry predictions, not the extreme changes now expected to occur in shallow reef systems.

Jumps in ocean acidity put coral in more peril

Just going to ignore the facts and post your blog articles as truth anyway...

Okay you keep spreading your myths and I will keep telling the truth...

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

Principia Scientific Intl | The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans

Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean Acidification

You can ignore the links, and ignore the truth, but others will see it.. STOP SPREADING BS!

Weirdos aren`t they?
IanC started a new thread "how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we ...."..??
...and vacated the thread after this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7232042-post1537.html

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.


And now we got the usual idiots changing IanC`s new thread to "ocean acidification"....another oxymoron because the oceans have a long way to go to be acidic:

The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels.[5] The extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels.[6] This process is known as ocean acidification
Between 1751 and 1994 surface oceanpH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans

a 30% increase wow...
Lets examine that a bit closer:
Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbonic acid
a name sometimes given to solutions of carbon dioxide in water (carbonated water), because such solutions contain small amounts of H2CO3.
The hydration equilibrium constant at 25°C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[2] and ≈ 1.2×10−3 in seawater.[3] Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules.
H2CO3

HCO3− + H+Ka1 = 2.5×10−4 mol/litre; pKa1 = 3.6 at 25 °C

which means that only 1 in 1700 CO2 molecules actually form a weak acid by adding an H+ ion the other 1699 CO2 molecules stay just that, pH neutral CO2 dissolved in water ( or 1 part as acid: per 1200 parts pH neutral CO2 in sea water)
Next:

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14

The pH is the negative decade log of H+ gram ions per liter.
So we are talking about an "increase" of 0.000 0016 ppm as far as the H+ is concerned.
No matter, to the "I used to run nuclear reactors" which meows:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we.html#post7223459

If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light.

According to this "science expert" you create "ink molecules" when you mix carbon soot, shellac and water... which "explains" how 0.000 000 0016 grams per liter more H+ have "acidified the oceans".
Let me put that into perspective.
20 drops (water) =~ 1 milliliter
The average size swimming pool is ~ 2500 m^3
If you add 80 drops of whatever to an Olympic sized swimming pool then you increased the "whatever" by 0.000 0016 ppm.
Siamese cat-piss, black ink "mamooth molecules", acid no matter...

 

[Dot Com]

ummm.....thats a blanket Denialist's statement. Too general. You could've posted that anywhere in this sub-forum.

 

[Unkotare]

SSDD -

I'll ask again - which ocean current, and where does the run off come from?

And yes, I know you have never heard of the Cook Islands and do not know where they are. The problem is - I do know where they are, and I know the ocean currents in the region.

The point I am tryin to get through to you here is that it runoff occurs in California, it is highly improbable that it would sail across the ocean in a giant block, and then hit beaches of Nukualofa, isn't it?

Arent you able to see that there is a convergence of currents passing right across the coook islands from all of those coasts?

I am not able to see that because there is no convergence, and you do not know where the Cook Islands are.

P.D. is at it again...

 

[Saigon]

5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.

That may be the funniest comment ever made on these threads - and it has a lot of competition!!

Well done, Fox, I did laugh out loud at that!

What did Stephen Hawking say when you asked him?!

 

[Foxfyre]

5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.

That may be the funniest comment ever made on these threads - and it has a lot of competition!!

Well done, Fox, I did laugh out loud at that!

What did Stephen Hawking say when you asked him?!

Perhaps you can point to any studies Stephen Hawking has done on the topic of anthropogenic global warming? Or his qualifications to be an authority on that subject? He has commented, however, that human won't survive another 1,000 years unless they develop technology that allows them to escape Earth and move elsewhere. Do you agree with that?

 

[Saigon]

Perhaps you can point to any studies Stephen Hawking has done on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

Stephen Hawking's best quotes about the earth, climate change - Miami Interfaith Spirituality | Examiner.com

So...did he only say this because ne needed money - or does he not understand the physics?

 

[mamooth]

the absorption is 0.054 W/m - and not 4.3 W/m

That dumb experment which polarbear fell for didn't replicate the atmosphere at all. It only looked at CO2. The reasons CO2 is so important is that the atmosphere doesn't have many open IR spectral windows. Most of it is already closed off. The CO2 covers some of the few remaining windows, so its effects are multiplied.

If your house has a hundred open windows and you close one, it makes very little difference with temperature. That's what polarbear's experiment showed.

If you house has two open windows and you close one, that makes a big difference with temperature. That's the real world.

According to this "science expert" you create "ink molecules" when you mix carbon soot, shellac and water...

Yep. Given that I'm good at engineering, I explain things simply. Ink is ink. For the analogy, there's no need to break it down. Since polarbear sucks hard at engineering and common sense, he stupidly and needlessly complicates everything until nobody can understand what he's trying to say. But then, that's probably deliberate on his part, hiding his lack of knowledge with the avalanche o' crap tactic.

which "explains" how 0.000 000 0056 grams per liter more H+ have "acidified the oceans".

This is a truly inspired evasion by polarbear. I refute the "it's just a trace!" stupidity by showing how a trace absorbs all visible light, so polarbear ignores that point, and instead dishonestly claims I was actually speaking on the completely unrelated topic of pH. That's how polarbear works. His idiot science always get debunked, and instead of addressing those debunkings, he runs by switching topics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps you can point to any studies Stephen Hawking has done on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

Stephen Hawking's best quotes about the earth, climate change - Miami Interfaith Spirituality | Examiner.com

So...did he only say this because ne needed money - or does he not understand the physics?

I have read similar comments right here at USMB uttered by people with no scientific credentials whatsoever.

Again, please point me to any scientific studies Hawkings has conducted himself on this matter. And please cite his professional credentials that would make him an authority on the subject.

If you cannot do that, his is an informed opinion no different than informed opinions of those who disagree with him.

 

[mamooth]

I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.

No, they're based on emotionalism, bad logic and incorrect data.

1. A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record.

Name _one_. I have not encountered even a single such person. Where did you get such a crazy idea? Nobody looks only at the satellite record. Direct temp measurements go back centuries, and proxies go back millions of years.

2. Those most strongly advocating the AGW theory do not themselves demonstrate any concern for human activity and in fact live lifestyles that they condemn the rest of us for living.

Al Gore fixation emotional fallacy. Rational people only look at the science, and thus don't care about Gore. Denialists, however, are obsessed with Gore, since cultists need outsiders to demonize, and because it gives them an excuse to fixate on personalities and ignore the actual science.

3. The politicans of the world are not focusing on the largest producers of CO2 in their efforts to combat this terrible catastrophe of global warming that they say is imminent.

Conspiracy nonsense.

4. The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them.

Just plain totally wrong again.

5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.

Bad logic. All scientists presumably draw some kind of salary. Therefore, by FoxFyre bad logic, it's impossible for any scientist to not be on the take, since they publish results and get a salary. Apparently, no scientist can be trusted unless they take a vow of poverty and work for nothing.

Back in the real world, any scientist could double their salary by switching to the denialist side. The fact that they voluntarily accept a reduced salary in order to tell the truth means the financial aspects give _more_ credibility to the AGW scientists.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would invite any of our AGW proponents on this thread to find credible sources that would dispute the data cited in this article:

Some excerpts:

. . . .So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. . . .


. . . A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

The report concludes: “The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.”

Finally, although any 98% climate consensus is 100% baloney, this is something all reasonable scientists should really agree about
.
Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Supports U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues - Forbes

 

[Foxfyre]

I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.

No, they're based on emotionalism, bad logic and incorrect data.

1. A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record.

Name _one_. I have not encountered even a single such person. Where did you get such a crazy idea? Nobody looks only at the satellite record. Direct temp measurements go back centuries, and proxies go back millions of years.



Al Gore fixation emotional fallacy. Rational people only look at the science, and thus don't care about Gore. Denialists, however, are obsessed with Gore, since cultists need outsiders to demonize, and because it gives them an excuse to fixate on personalities and ignore the actual science.



Conspiracy nonsense.

4. The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them.

Just plain totally wrong again.

5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.

Bad logic. All scientists presumably draw some kind of salary. Therefore, by FoxFyre bad logic, it's impossible for any scientist to not be on the take, since they publish results and get a salary. Apparently, no scientist can be trusted unless they take a vow of poverty and work for nothing.

Back in the real world, any scientist could double their salary by switching to the denialist side. The fact that they voluntarily accept a reduced salary in order to tell the truth means the financial aspects give _more_ credibility to the AGW scientists.

I hate posts chopped up like that and generally don't bother to respond. But I'll put my bad logic up against yours and double down.

Here are a few $$$ worth of statistics for you to dispute if you can:
How much funding did the Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist Lobby get vs the Skeptics? - Yahoo!7 Answers

 

[mamooth]

The entire premise of ocean acidification by man induced CO2 has already been proven an alarmist claim..

Your links were nitpicking nonsense, none of which disputed the fact that ocean pH is decreasing. Instead, they complained about how the commonly used term of "acidification" to describe lowering pH should be replaced by "neutralization", because they think that's more politically correct.

It makes no difference what you call the process of lowering pH. The point is that it's happening, and it causes harm. Trying to divert from the facts with semantic games is kind of pathetic, and denying that it's happening is delusional. Again, we see a handful of cranks declaring that the entire rest of the globe is engaging in a vast conspiracy to fake the data, and that only their political fringe cult knows the RealTruth.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I would challenge Mamooth to post his credentials that give him any credibility to declare somebody else's opinion as wrong. Most especially when he doesn't challenge information they provide with anything other than his opinion.

 

[mamooth]

Here are a few $$$ worth of statistics for you to dispute if you can:

You're Gish Galloping now, a tactic named after creationist Duane Gish. That is, dump out a vast torrent of strawmen, half-truths and fabrications, demand they all be refuted one by one, and then declare victory when no one wastes time on it. Good luck with that.

 

[gslack]

The entire premise of ocean acidification by man induced CO2 has already been proven an alarmist claim..

Your links were nitpicking nonsense, none of which disputed the fact that ocean pH is decreasing. Instead, they complained about how the commonly used term of "acidification" to describe lowering pH should be replaced by "neutralization", because they think that's more politically correct.

It makes no difference what you call the process of lowering pH. The point is that it's happening, and it causes harm. Trying to divert from the facts with semantic games is kind of pathetic, and denying that it's happening is delusional. Again, we see a handful of cranks declaring that the entire rest of the globe is engaging in a vast conspiracy to fake the data, and that only their political fringe cult knows the RealTruth.

AAAAHHHHHH!!!! WRONG!!!!!

Now you're lying admiral...

One discussed how PH is measured and the inconsistencies in the terminology, in order to show one of the misconceptions being pushed by the media and pundits.

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

The next one. Was showing that the alarmist claims about ocean acidification are bunk scientifically..

Principia Scientific Intl | The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans

Then the one after that was about the way the claim is used to scare people, and based on unrealistic and inaccurate claims based on loose and limited research...

Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean Acidification

There the links are anyone can read them.. Quit lying admiral...

 

[gslack]

And I would challenge Mamooth to post his credentials that give him any credibility to declare somebody else's opinion as wrong. Most especially when he doesn't challenge information they provide with anything other than his opinion.

LOL, you must not have heard. I call mamooth admiral because his claimed credentials. He was a navy "nuke" but didn't seem to understand anything about the job, then he was an officer to boot, which of course he knew nothing about, and all of this was backed up by his desperate begging us to ask him to post his DD214. When we got tired of his crying, we said go ahead and he posts one he grabbed of the internet. Then when the metadata showed it was a fake, he scrubbed it and posted the same pic edited again..

Hence now he is Admiral....ROFL,he's some bit of work..

 

[bripat9643]

Jon -

So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?

Botulism won't kill you unless you ingest it. If you put a drop of it in a swimming pool, the Chlorine would destroy it in minutes.

Not a good example.
I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?

Taking a small amount of Iodine will prevent any dangerous effects of Cesium. The dangers of Chernobyl are grossly exaggerated. The total number of deaths from the accident is under 50.

 

[bripat9643]

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

The Ozone hole has no connection with climate, so your analogy is bogus. There is no evidence that increasing the quantity of CO2 "alters the very fine balance of the atmosphere." That's the theory that cultists like you have claimed but haven't demonstrated.

 

[mamooth]

OhLOL, you must not have heard.

Groan. I was hoping gslack had finally gotten over his butthurt, but that's clearly not ever going to happen. I think I've permanently broken his little psyche.

Yes, addressing him as if he were a rational grownup clearly was a mistake, so I'll stop and just leave him alone with his precious butthurt now.