Why Co2 Can Not Cause Further Warming...

[mamooth]

it is an apt description, as anyone who has visited her site would know. it wouldnt be so bad if she had anything else to say but it seems like her reason for being is simply to attack and denigrate. it seems that you and she have a lot in common.

Quite the contrary. You use such sexist terms precisely because she's so good at the science.

You never see the rational people flinging sexist slurs at Curry or any denier woman. We argue the science. You can't, so sexist attacks are all you have.

Plus, on the emotional level, deniers tend to be stunted manchildren, packs of bullies who think of women as easy targets. And you're joining in.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Circk, Had you read the paper you would have found that there are many systems which buffer the CO2. Again you only see what you want and discard that which removes you from having even one valid point.

The paper clearly shows that the speed of buffering will offset and maintain the PH within a very narrow margin..

SO not only is it not a problem for the atmosphere it is not a problem for the oceans... I wonder what will be the next big lie and emergency demanding we deprive ourselves of cheep reliable energy? I'm sure the left wit control mongers will lie up something new...

Bullshit.

Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release Abstract Nature Geoscience

Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release
Andy Ridgwell1 & Daniela N. Schmidt2

Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in sea water are driving a progressive acidification of the ocean1. Although the associated changes in the carbonate chemistry of surface and deep waters may adversely affect marine calcifying organisms2, 3, 4, current experiments do not always produce consistent results for a given species5. Ocean sediments record past biological responses to transient greenhouse warming and ocean acidification. During the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, for example, the biodiversity of benthic calcifying organisms decreased markedly6, 7, whereas extinctions of surface dwellers were very limited8, 9. Here we use the Earth system model GENIE-1 to simulate and compare directly past and present environmental changes in the marine realm. In our simulation of future ocean conditions, we find an undersaturation with respect to carbonate in the deep ocean that exceeds that experienced during the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum and could endanger calcifying organisms. Furthermore, our simulations show higher rates of environmental change at the surface for the future than the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, which could potentially challenge the ability of plankton to adapt.

Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

1. John M. Pandolfi1,2,*,
2. Sean R. Connolly3,
3. Dustin J. Marshall2,
4. Anne L. Cohen4

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: j.pandolfi@uq.edu.au

• ABSTRACT

Many physiological responses in present-day coral reefs to climate change are interpreted as consistent with the imminent disappearance of modern reefs globally because of annual mass bleaching events, carbonate dissolution, and insufficient time for substantial evolutionary responses. Emerging evidence for variability in the coral calcification response to acidification, geographical variation in bleaching susceptibility and recovery, responses to past climate change, and potential rates of adaptation to rapid warming supports an alternative scenario in which reef degradation occurs with greater temporal and spatial heterogeneity than current projections suggest. Reducing uncertainty in projecting coral reef futures requires improved understanding of past responses to rapid climate change; physiological responses to interacting factors, such as temperature, acidification, and nutrients; and the costs and constraints imposed by acclimation and adaptation.

Shelf and open-ocean calcareous phytoplankton assemblages across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Implications for global productivity gradients

Shelf and open-ocean calcareous phytoplankton assemblages across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: Implications for global productivity gradients

1. Samantha J. Gibbs*1,
2. Timothy J. Bralower1,
3. Paul R. Bown2,
4. James C. Zachos3and
5. Laurel M. Bybell4

+Author Affiliations

1. 1Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
2. 2Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
3. 3Earth Science Department, University of California–Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
4. 4U.S. Geological Survey, 926 National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA

Abstract
Abrupt global warming and profound perturbation of the carbon cycle during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ca. 55 Ma) have been linked to a massive release of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system. Increased phytoplankton productivity has been invoked to cause subsequent CO2 drawdown, cooling, and environmental recovery. However, interpretations of geochemical and biotic data differ on when and where this increased productivity occurred. Here we present high-resolution nannofossil assemblage data from a shelf section (the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] drill hole at Wilson Lake, New Jersey) and an open-ocean location (Ocean Drilling Program [ODP] Site 1209, paleoequatorial Pacific). These data combined with published biotic records indicate a transient steepening of shelf-offshelf trophic gradients across the PETM onset and peak, with a decrease in open-ocean productivity coeval with increased nutrient availability in shelf areas. Productivity levels recovered in the open ocean during the later stages of the event, which, coupled with intensified continental weathering rates, may have played an important role in carbon sequestration and CO2 drawdown.

Enhanced terrestrial weathering runoff and surface ocean carbonate production during the recovery stages of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum - Kelly - 2005 - Paleoceanography - Wiley Online Library

Enhanced terrestrial weathering/runoff and surface ocean carbonate production during the recovery stages of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

1. D. Clay Kelly1,
2. James C. Zachos2,
3. Timothy J. Bralower3 and
4. Stephen A. Schellenberg4

Article first published online: 17 DEC 2005

DOI: 10.1029/2005PA001163

Copyright 2005 by the American Geophysical Union.
Abstract
[1] The carbonate saturation profile of the oceans shoaled markedly during a transient global warming event known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) (circa 55 Ma). The rapid release of large quantities of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system is believed to have triggered this intense episode of dissolution along with a negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE). The brevity (120–220 kyr) of the PETM reflects the rapid enhancement of negative feedback mechanisms within Earth's exogenic carbon cycle that served the dual function of buffering ocean pH and reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Detailed study of the PETM stratigraphy from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690 (Weddell Sea) reveals that the CIE recovery period, which postdates the CIE onset by ∼80 kyr, is represented by an expanded (∼2.5 m thick) interval containing a unique planktic foraminiferal assemblage strongly diluted by coccolithophore carbonate. Collectively, the micropaleontological and sedimentological changes preserved within the CIE recovery interval reflect a transient state when ocean-atmosphere chemistry fostered prolific coccolithophore blooms that suppressed the local lysocline to relatively deeper depths. A prominent peak in the abundance of the clay mineral kaolinite is associated with the CIE recovery interval, indicating that continental weathering/runoff intensified at this time as well (Robert and Kennett, 1994). Such parallel stratigraphic changes are generally consonant with the hypothesis that enhanced continental weathering/runoff and carbonate precipitation helped sequester carbon during the PETM recovery period (e.g., Dickens et al., 1997; Zachos et al., 2005).

wiki links and a 1994 paper that has thoroughly been debunked by real ocean scientists which tell us the reefs have recovered in the last 18 - 26 years.. THEY ADAPTED! Who would of thunk that a life form could adapt and survive? But wait, the so called 'acidification' has gone away.

 

[mamooth]

The direct pH measurements disagree with you.

But hey, what are actual measurements compared to Billy's religious beliefs?

 

[SSDD]

The direct pH measurements disagree with you.

But hey, what are actual measurements compared to Billy's religious beliefs?

And what is the range of natural pH change from day to day....much less year to year?

 

[Crick]

The range of values taken on daily by the global average pH is microscopic.

Where do you fools get this incessant idea that you know more chemistry and physics than the people with the PhDs; that people who've spent their lives doing this sort of research would make the grade school level errors you so frequently charge them with having made?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The direct pH measurements disagree with you.

But hey, what are actual measurements compared to Billy's religious beliefs?

And what is the range of natural pH change from day to day....much less year to year?

The ranges vary with location. Latitude, time of year, and Oceanic circulations being hot or cold. Some areas near the polar regions can vary by as much as 1.0 shifts while near the equator the variance is less than 0.01 shifts.
Its rather funny to watch these alarmists twist themselves into knots and not have a clue about the subject. Even at the mouths of rivers the PH can have wild swings depending on tidal movement and out flow of the river.

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid nothing you've posted here gives the slightest indication you've got a clue about any of this.

Are you familiar with the Permian Triassic extinction event? Here, educate yourself. Permian Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Then come back and tell us how harmless the curent pH trends look to be.

 

[SSDD]

I'm afraid nothing you've posted here gives the slightest indication you've got a clue about any of this.

Are you familiar with the Permian Triassic extinction event? Here, educate yourself. Permian Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Then come back and tell us how harmless the curent pH trends look to be.

If you think you have the slightest notion of what actually happened, then you are stupid enough to believe in both AGW and CAGW...The fact is that the Permian/Triassic extinction is shrouded in mystery and there are more guesses as to what caused it than there are excuses for the pause. Go ahead and tell us how much you actually know about the Permian/Triassic extinction vs what is supposed, hypothesized, guessed, assumed, and presumed.

 

[Crick]

I'd say I know more about it than Billy Bob does about ocean pH. And I know more about the back side of the moon than you do about any branch of physics at all.

 

[SSDD]

I'd say I know more about it than Billy Bob does about ocean pH. And I know more about the back side of the moon than you do about any branch of physics at all.

Of course you don't...but I believe that you believe that you do. You didn't answer my question...tell us that you know what caused the Permian/Triassic extinction....you sound like Ian, expounding on what is happening at the sub atomic level as if science actually knows and he has seen the movie. What caused the Permian/Triassic extinction is shrouded in mystery and will probably never be known...all of the clues have long since been obliterated...it is a cold case and gets colder with every passing day.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia

Until 2000, it was thought that rock sequences spanning the Permian–Triassic boundary were too few and contained too many gaps for scientists to determine reliably its details.[19]Uranium-lead dating of zircons from rock sequences in multiple locations in southern China[4] dates the extinction to 252.28±0.08 Ma; an earlier study of rock sequences nearMeishan in Changxing County of Zhejiang Province, China[20] dates the extinction to251.4±0.3 Ma, with an ongoing elevated extinction rate occurring for some time thereafter.[10] A large (approximately 0.9%), abrupt global decrease in the ratio of the stable isotope 13C to that of 12C, coincides with this extinction,[17][21][22][23][24] and is sometimes used to identify the Permian–Triassic boundary in rocks that are unsuitable for radiometric dating.[25] Further evidence for environmental change around the P–Tr boundary suggests an 8 °C (14 °F) rise in temperature,[17] and an increase in CO
2 levels by 2000 ppm (by contrast, the concentration immediately before the industrial revolution was 280 ppm.)[17]There is also evidence of incr

 

[Old Rocks]

Circk, Had you read the paper you would have found that there are many systems which buffer the CO2. Again you only see what you want and discard that which removes you from having even one valid point.

The paper clearly shows that the speed of buffering will offset and maintain the PH within a very narrow margin..

SO not only is it not a problem for the atmosphere it is not a problem for the oceans... I wonder what will be the next big lie and emergency demanding we deprive ourselves of cheep reliable energy? I'm sure the left wit control mongers will lie up something new...

Bullshit.

Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release Abstract Nature Geoscience

Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release
Andy Ridgwell1 & Daniela N. Schmidt2

Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in sea water are driving a progressive acidification of the ocean1. Although the associated changes in the carbonate chemistry of surface and deep waters may adversely affect marine calcifying organisms2, 3, 4, current experiments do not always produce consistent results for a given species5. Ocean sediments record past biological responses to transient greenhouse warming and ocean acidification. During the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, for example, the biodiversity of benthic calcifying organisms decreased markedly6, 7, whereas extinctions of surface dwellers were very limited8, 9. Here we use the Earth system model GENIE-1 to simulate and compare directly past and present environmental changes in the marine realm. In our simulation of future ocean conditions, we find an undersaturation with respect to carbonate in the deep ocean that exceeds that experienced during the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum and could endanger calcifying organisms. Furthermore, our simulations show higher rates of environmental change at the surface for the future than the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, which could potentially challenge the ability of plankton to adapt.

Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

1. John M. Pandolfi1,2,*,
2. Sean R. Connolly3,
3. Dustin J. Marshall2,
4. Anne L. Cohen4

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: j.pandolfi@uq.edu.au

• ABSTRACT

Many physiological responses in present-day coral reefs to climate change are interpreted as consistent with the imminent disappearance of modern reefs globally because of annual mass bleaching events, carbonate dissolution, and insufficient time for substantial evolutionary responses. Emerging evidence for variability in the coral calcification response to acidification, geographical variation in bleaching susceptibility and recovery, responses to past climate change, and potential rates of adaptation to rapid warming supports an alternative scenario in which reef degradation occurs with greater temporal and spatial heterogeneity than current projections suggest. Reducing uncertainty in projecting coral reef futures requires improved understanding of past responses to rapid climate change; physiological responses to interacting factors, such as temperature, acidification, and nutrients; and the costs and constraints imposed by acclimation and adaptation.

Shelf and open-ocean calcareous phytoplankton assemblages across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Implications for global productivity gradients

Shelf and open-ocean calcareous phytoplankton assemblages across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: Implications for global productivity gradients

1. Samantha J. Gibbs*1,
2. Timothy J. Bralower1,
3. Paul R. Bown2,
4. James C. Zachos3and
5. Laurel M. Bybell4

+Author Affiliations

1. 1Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
2. 2Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
3. 3Earth Science Department, University of California–Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
4. 4U.S. Geological Survey, 926 National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA

Abstract
Abrupt global warming and profound perturbation of the carbon cycle during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ca. 55 Ma) have been linked to a massive release of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system. Increased phytoplankton productivity has been invoked to cause subsequent CO2 drawdown, cooling, and environmental recovery. However, interpretations of geochemical and biotic data differ on when and where this increased productivity occurred. Here we present high-resolution nannofossil assemblage data from a shelf section (the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] drill hole at Wilson Lake, New Jersey) and an open-ocean location (Ocean Drilling Program [ODP] Site 1209, paleoequatorial Pacific). These data combined with published biotic records indicate a transient steepening of shelf-offshelf trophic gradients across the PETM onset and peak, with a decrease in open-ocean productivity coeval with increased nutrient availability in shelf areas. Productivity levels recovered in the open ocean during the later stages of the event, which, coupled with intensified continental weathering rates, may have played an important role in carbon sequestration and CO2 drawdown.

Enhanced terrestrial weathering runoff and surface ocean carbonate production during the recovery stages of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum - Kelly - 2005 - Paleoceanography - Wiley Online Library

Enhanced terrestrial weathering/runoff and surface ocean carbonate production during the recovery stages of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

1. D. Clay Kelly1,
2. James C. Zachos2,
3. Timothy J. Bralower3 and
4. Stephen A. Schellenberg4

Article first published online: 17 DEC 2005

DOI: 10.1029/2005PA001163

Copyright 2005 by the American Geophysical Union.
Abstract
[1] The carbonate saturation profile of the oceans shoaled markedly during a transient global warming event known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) (circa 55 Ma). The rapid release of large quantities of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system is believed to have triggered this intense episode of dissolution along with a negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE). The brevity (120–220 kyr) of the PETM reflects the rapid enhancement of negative feedback mechanisms within Earth's exogenic carbon cycle that served the dual function of buffering ocean pH and reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Detailed study of the PETM stratigraphy from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690 (Weddell Sea) reveals that the CIE recovery period, which postdates the CIE onset by ∼80 kyr, is represented by an expanded (∼2.5 m thick) interval containing a unique planktic foraminiferal assemblage strongly diluted by coccolithophore carbonate. Collectively, the micropaleontological and sedimentological changes preserved within the CIE recovery interval reflect a transient state when ocean-atmosphere chemistry fostered prolific coccolithophore blooms that suppressed the local lysocline to relatively deeper depths. A prominent peak in the abundance of the clay mineral kaolinite is associated with the CIE recovery interval, indicating that continental weathering/runoff intensified at this time as well (Robert and Kennett, 1994). Such parallel stratigraphic changes are generally consonant with the hypothesis that enhanced continental weathering/runoff and carbonate precipitation helped sequester carbon during the PETM recovery period (e.g., Dickens et al., 1997; Zachos et al., 2005).

wiki links and a 1994 paper that has thoroughly been debunked by real ocean scientists which tell us the reefs have recovered in the last 18 - 26 years.. THEY ADAPTED! Who would of thunk that a life form could adapt and survive? But wait, the so called 'acidification' has gone away.

But of course Billy Boob Liar has no links to back up his assertations. Just silly lying flap-yap.

Fact file How healthy is the Great Barrier Reef - Fact Check - ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation

According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a Federal Government agency, the reef faces a number of threats.

They include climate change, which is causing warmer waters and coral bleaching; declining water quality from coastal catchments and flow-on effects of agricultural practices; coastal development; fishing; and extreme weather, including flooding and cyclones.

UNESCO has been considering listing the Great Barrier Reef as a world heritage site in danger since June 2012. A final decision will be made in 2015.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But of course Billy Boob Liar has no links to back up his assertations. Just silly lying flap-yap.

Fact file How healthy is the Great Barrier Reef - Fact Check - ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation

According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a Federal Government agency, the reef faces a number of threats.

They include climate change, which is causing warmer waters and coral bleaching; declining water quality from coastal catchments and flow-on effects of agricultural practices; coastal development; fishing; and extreme weather, including flooding and cyclones.

UNESCO has been considering listing the Great Barrier Reef as a world heritage site in danger since June 2012. A final decision will be made in 2015.

Old Crock cant even zip up his fly....

Dr David Archibald has done the math you and Crick refuse to do and guess what..... YOU LOOSE! AGAIN....

The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming.

The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, much more equal.

I made some minor additions to the graph showing the minor warming since 1900 and it shows no positive water vapor enhancement. NONE! And as the good doctor points out from here on there is no increase expected from CO2 just as I have. It is essentially flat line.

Repeatable science with the same outcomes... Dam! You do the math and you find out AGW is a lie...

You two morons should really try to do real science and lay off the koolaid psuedo-political-science..

Source

 

[Crick]

David Archibald is not a doctor. He has a bachelors degree in geology. He has spent his entire professional career in oil, coal and finance. His math isn't worth shit.

 

[Crick]

Circk, Had you read the paper you would have found that there are many systems which buffer the CO2. Again you only see what you want and discard that which removes you from having even one valid point.

The paper clearly shows that the speed of buffering will offset and maintain the PH within a very narrow margin..

SO not only is it not a problem for the atmosphere it is not a problem for the oceans... I wonder what will be the next big lie and emergency demanding we deprive ourselves of cheep reliable energy? I'm sure the left wit control mongers will lie up something new...

Bullshit.

Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release Abstract Nature Geoscience

Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release
Andy Ridgwell1 & Daniela N. Schmidt2

Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in sea water are driving a progressive acidification of the ocean1. Although the associated changes in the carbonate chemistry of surface and deep waters may adversely affect marine calcifying organisms2, 3, 4, current experiments do not always produce consistent results for a given species5. Ocean sediments record past biological responses to transient greenhouse warming and ocean acidification. During the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, for example, the biodiversity of benthic calcifying organisms decreased markedly6, 7, whereas extinctions of surface dwellers were very limited8, 9. Here we use the Earth system model GENIE-1 to simulate and compare directly past and present environmental changes in the marine realm. In our simulation of future ocean conditions, we find an undersaturation with respect to carbonate in the deep ocean that exceeds that experienced during the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum and could endanger calcifying organisms. Furthermore, our simulations show higher rates of environmental change at the surface for the future than the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, which could potentially challenge the ability of plankton to adapt.

Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

1. John M. Pandolfi1,2,*,
2. Sean R. Connolly3,
3. Dustin J. Marshall2,
4. Anne L. Cohen4

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: j.pandolfi@uq.edu.au

• ABSTRACT

Many physiological responses in present-day coral reefs to climate change are interpreted as consistent with the imminent disappearance of modern reefs globally because of annual mass bleaching events, carbonate dissolution, and insufficient time for substantial evolutionary responses. Emerging evidence for variability in the coral calcification response to acidification, geographical variation in bleaching susceptibility and recovery, responses to past climate change, and potential rates of adaptation to rapid warming supports an alternative scenario in which reef degradation occurs with greater temporal and spatial heterogeneity than current projections suggest. Reducing uncertainty in projecting coral reef futures requires improved understanding of past responses to rapid climate change; physiological responses to interacting factors, such as temperature, acidification, and nutrients; and the costs and constraints imposed by acclimation and adaptation.

Shelf and open-ocean calcareous phytoplankton assemblages across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Implications for global productivity gradients

Shelf and open-ocean calcareous phytoplankton assemblages across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: Implications for global productivity gradients

1. Samantha J. Gibbs*1,
2. Timothy J. Bralower1,
3. Paul R. Bown2,
4. James C. Zachos3and
5. Laurel M. Bybell4

+Author Affiliations

1. 1Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
2. 2Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
3. 3Earth Science Department, University of California–Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
4. 4U.S. Geological Survey, 926 National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA

Abstract
Abrupt global warming and profound perturbation of the carbon cycle during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ca. 55 Ma) have been linked to a massive release of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system. Increased phytoplankton productivity has been invoked to cause subsequent CO2 drawdown, cooling, and environmental recovery. However, interpretations of geochemical and biotic data differ on when and where this increased productivity occurred. Here we present high-resolution nannofossil assemblage data from a shelf section (the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] drill hole at Wilson Lake, New Jersey) and an open-ocean location (Ocean Drilling Program [ODP] Site 1209, paleoequatorial Pacific). These data combined with published biotic records indicate a transient steepening of shelf-offshelf trophic gradients across the PETM onset and peak, with a decrease in open-ocean productivity coeval with increased nutrient availability in shelf areas. Productivity levels recovered in the open ocean during the later stages of the event, which, coupled with intensified continental weathering rates, may have played an important role in carbon sequestration and CO2 drawdown.

Enhanced terrestrial weathering runoff and surface ocean carbonate production during the recovery stages of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum - Kelly - 2005 - Paleoceanography - Wiley Online Library

Enhanced terrestrial weathering/runoff and surface ocean carbonate production during the recovery stages of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

1. D. Clay Kelly1,
2. James C. Zachos2,
3. Timothy J. Bralower3 and
4. Stephen A. Schellenberg4

Article first published online: 17 DEC 2005

DOI: 10.1029/2005PA001163

Copyright 2005 by the American Geophysical Union.
Abstract
[1] The carbonate saturation profile of the oceans shoaled markedly during a transient global warming event known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) (circa 55 Ma). The rapid release of large quantities of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system is believed to have triggered this intense episode of dissolution along with a negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE). The brevity (120–220 kyr) of the PETM reflects the rapid enhancement of negative feedback mechanisms within Earth's exogenic carbon cycle that served the dual function of buffering ocean pH and reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Detailed study of the PETM stratigraphy from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690 (Weddell Sea) reveals that the CIE recovery period, which postdates the CIE onset by ∼80 kyr, is represented by an expanded (∼2.5 m thick) interval containing a unique planktic foraminiferal assemblage strongly diluted by coccolithophore carbonate. Collectively, the micropaleontological and sedimentological changes preserved within the CIE recovery interval reflect a transient state when ocean-atmosphere chemistry fostered prolific coccolithophore blooms that suppressed the local lysocline to relatively deeper depths. A prominent peak in the abundance of the clay mineral kaolinite is associated with the CIE recovery interval, indicating that continental weathering/runoff intensified at this time as well (Robert and Kennett, 1994). Such parallel stratigraphic changes are generally consonant with the hypothesis that enhanced continental weathering/runoff and carbonate precipitation helped sequester carbon during the PETM recovery period (e.g., Dickens et al., 1997; Zachos et al., 2005).

wiki links and a 1994 paper that has thoroughly been debunked by real ocean scientists which tell us the reefs have recovered in the last 18 - 26 years.. THEY ADAPTED! Who would of thunk that a life form could adapt and survive? But wait, the so called 'acidification' has gone away.

None of that came from Wikipedia and if you've got a rebuttal for any of these papers, let's see it.

 

[mamooth]

I've looked at Archibald. And ... it's babbling gibberish. Saying "refute this" is like someone demanding I refute the Unibomber Manifesto. The only refutation necessary is to point out that it's babbling gibberish.

Billy, if you're so enamored with it, I suggest you work with him on an article, submit it for publication and go through the peer review process. Real peer review, not denier pal review. You know, do some science. Good luck.

 

[jc456]

I've looked at Archibald. And ... it's babbling gibberish. Saying "refute this" is like someone demanding I refute the Unibomber Manifesto. The only refutation necessary is to point out that it's babbling gibberish.

Billy, if you're so enamored with it, I suggest you work with him on an article, submit it for publication and go through the peer review process. Real peer review, not denier pal review. You know, do some science. Good luck.

haahhahahahahahaha as usual you have nothing. The math was done, disprove it. Can you is the question at hand? Let's see what you have.

 

[jc456]

David Archibald is not a doctor. He has a bachelors degree in geology. He has spent his entire professional career in oil, coal and finance. His math isn't worth shit.

here from Real climate Link: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

Abstract:

"The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

 

[jc456]

But of course Billy Boob Liar has no links to back up his assertations. Just silly lying flap-yap.

Fact file How healthy is the Great Barrier Reef - Fact Check - ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation

According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a Federal Government agency, the reef faces a number of threats.

They include climate change, which is causing warmer waters and coral bleaching; declining water quality from coastal catchments and flow-on effects of agricultural practices; coastal development; fishing; and extreme weather, including flooding and cyclones.

UNESCO has been considering listing the Great Barrier Reef as a world heritage site in danger since June 2012. A final decision will be made in 2015.

Old Crock cant even zip up his fly....

Dr David Archibald has done the math you and Crick refuse to do and guess what..... YOU LOOSE! AGAIN....

The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming.

The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, much more equal.

View attachment 33775

I made some minor additions to the graph showing the minor warming since 1900 and it shows no positive water vapor enhancement. NONE! And as the good doctor points out from here on there is no increase expected from CO2 just as I have. It is essentially flat line.

Repeatable science with the same outcomes... Dam! You do the math and you find out AGW is a lie...

You two morons should really try to do real science and lay off the koolaid psuedo-political-science..

Source

Link from Clive Best: Doubling CO2 and basic physics Clive Best

Abstract from this one is curious:

"Radiative Forcing Update: I have now found this reference to the equations used to derive the 4 watts/sq m radiative forcing by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
rf = f * ln([CO2]/[CO2]prein)/ln(2) in watts/m ** 2
It would appear that in order to derive the factor f the IPCC assume that all of the 0.6 degrees warming apparently seen since the industrial revoluton is due to CO2 and thereby derive the constant
AF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
Then we get simply 5.35*ln(2) = 3.7 watts/sq m for the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 !
If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument ! Many skeptics argue that the recent rises in temperature is dominated by a natural recovery from the little Ice Age. In order to be convinced that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming then I would prefer that this formula could be derived from basic physical arguments rather than introducing a fudge factor preset to prove a theory."

 

[jc456]

But of course Billy Boob Liar has no links to back up his assertations. Just silly lying flap-yap.

Fact file How healthy is the Great Barrier Reef - Fact Check - ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation

According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a Federal Government agency, the reef faces a number of threats.

They include climate change, which is causing warmer waters and coral bleaching; declining water quality from coastal catchments and flow-on effects of agricultural practices; coastal development; fishing; and extreme weather, including flooding and cyclones.

UNESCO has been considering listing the Great Barrier Reef as a world heritage site in danger since June 2012. A final decision will be made in 2015.

Old Crock cant even zip up his fly....

Dr David Archibald has done the math you and Crick refuse to do and guess what..... YOU LOOSE! AGAIN....

The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming.

The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, much more equal.

View attachment 33775

I made some minor additions to the graph showing the minor warming since 1900 and it shows no positive water vapor enhancement. NONE! And as the good doctor points out from here on there is no increase expected from CO2 just as I have. It is essentially flat line.

Repeatable science with the same outcomes... Dam! You do the math and you find out AGW is a lie...

You two morons should really try to do real science and lay off the koolaid psuedo-political-science..

Source

Billy, a video I found along the same line as the Dr. used.

Video: