|
Post by scpg02 on May 28, 2011 4:19:58 GMT
3% of CO2 emissions are man made. We're told rising atmospheric CO2 levels are caused by man. Apparently Henry's Law is negotiable. The sources I've seen say that all of the natural CO2 and half the man made is sequestered so according to them the increase can be attributed to man. All figured out by measuring the ratio of carbon 13 to 14 or something like that. They also say the half life of the CO2 is 5 years. I've seen it debated but I trust the source.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 28, 2011 6:06:51 GMT
Are you proposing that carbonic acid does not form from a reaction between CO2 and H2O, or that it does not matter? carbonic acid forming a reaction between CO2 and H2O is as ordinary as breathing. In fact it preceded breathing. So yes it matters and it matters a lot.
|
|
|
Post by mclainer on May 28, 2011 6:13:20 GMT
How did change work for the dinosaurs? Change did not work out for the dinosaurs because they weren't the master of it. If science is going to provide us the means of mastering our environment and we don't take advantage of it, what will be primarily to blame will be science itself for throwing its credibility on the rocks like a gang of sociopaths. Respect is a two way street.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on May 28, 2011 23:44:38 GMT
McLainer has a valid point. "Scientists" have been playing fast and loose with both fact and scientific method in order to favor their grant giving patrons and said patrons definitely non-scientific ends.
Those who find disengaged "peers" or those who share their enthusiasms to review their papers do not get much - other than a very thin film of respectability. A film somewhat less desirable than pond scum.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 29, 2011 22:46:47 GMT
McLainer has a valid point. "Scientists" have been playing fast and loose with both fact and scientific method in order to favor their grant giving patrons and said patrons definitely non-scientific ends. Those who find disengaged "peers" or those who share their enthusiasms to review their papers do not get much - other than a very thin film of respectability. A film somewhat less desirable than pond scum. Stranger Stranger, This is quite an assertion! (I think, actually, I've heard this one before...) so, Scientists are a monithithic group; no individualists need apply; scientists don't ever think they can make a name for themselves by figuring out something new that nobody else knows, rather, they are like sheep, who invariably follow the herd. Just wondering, Stranger, how does the new assistant professor get grants by saying they want to do the same thing everybody else just said? Just curious, how many research grants have you applied for? won? fyi, the grant system does not work like you imagine.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 29, 2011 22:56:14 GMT
McLainer has a valid point. "Scientists" have been playing fast and loose with both fact and scientific method in order to favor their grant giving patrons and said patrons definitely non-scientific ends. Those who find disengaged "peers" or those who share their enthusiasms to review their papers do not get much - other than a very thin film of respectability. A film somewhat less desirable than pond scum. Stranger Stranger, Going a bit further; perhaps it is not well known, but scientists are individualistic and highly competitive among themselves. A good scientist does not establish a reputation by following blindly along. I have not met a successful scientist who says their goal is to parrot what somebody else has already said and shown. It is just the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 29, 2011 23:10:12 GMT
McLainer has a valid point. "Scientists" have been playing fast and loose with both fact and scientific method in order to favor their grant giving patrons and said patrons definitely non-scientific ends. Those who find disengaged "peers" or those who share their enthusiasms to review their papers do not get much - other than a very thin film of respectability. A film somewhat less desirable than pond scum. Stranger Eisenhower foresaw this: ... [In] the technological revolution during recent decades ... research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ...
... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. ... we must ... be alert to the ... danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite And socold, where exactly you get your talking points is unclear, but please stop bringing Weak Analogy and Moral Equivalence logical fallacy tactics to the debate. It may be that where you visit most it is customary to high five each other when such rhetoric is posted, however here it will be called out.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 29, 2011 23:20:26 GMT
3% of CO2 emissions are man made. We're told rising atmospheric CO2 levels are caused by man. Apparently Henry's Law is negotiable. The sources I've seen say that all of the natural CO2 and half the man made is sequestered so according to them the increase can be attributed to man. All figured out by measuring the ratio of carbon 13 to 14 or something like that. They also say the half life of the CO2 is 5 years. I've seen it debated but I trust the source. magellan. scpg02 makes an important point. The issue is not the percentage of CO2 which comes from human activity. CO2 naturally cycles. The issue is 'drivers'. Factors that are changing over time in a specific direction, (not natural cycles). CO2 is one of these. Burning of fossile fuels, eg. is not part of the natural carbon cycle. Using carbon isotope analysis it is easy to distinguish between the two. Regarding ocean acidification, the new, increased concentration of CO2, has now been shown to be dissolving in the ocean forming carbonic acid at an increasing rate due to increasing human induced emissions of CO2. CO2 then reacts with H2O to form carbonic acid which makes the oceans more acidic. This phenomenon is of importance for marine species which require a narrow pH range for survival. (biologic extinctions have historically been an important factor in defining geologic episodes.) This present human induced phenomenon of ocean acidification is one of a series being seen as significant by geochemists, atmospheric chemists, and geologists, who are considering the concept of the Anthropocene. (there are others)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 29, 2011 23:30:36 GMT
The sources I've seen say that all of the natural CO2 and half the man made is sequestered so according to them the increase can be attributed to man. All figured out by measuring the ratio of carbon 13 to 14 or something like that. They also say the half life of the CO2 is 5 years. I've seen it debated but I trust the source. magellan. scpg02 makes an important point. The issue is not the percentage of CO2 which comes from human activity. CO2 naturally cycles. The issue is 'drivers'. Factors that are changing over time in a specific direction, (not natural cycles). CO2 is one of these. Burning of fossile fuels, eg. is not part of the natural carbon cycle. Using carbon isotope anlaysis it is easy to distinguish between the two. Regarding ocean acidification, the new, increased concentration of CO2, has now been shown to be dissolving in the ocean forming carbonic acid at an increasing rate due to increasing human induced emissions of CO2. CO2 then reacts with H2O to form carbonic acid which makes the oceans more acidic. This phenomenon is of importance for marine species which require a narrow pH range for survival. (biologic extinctions have historically been an important factor in defining geologic episodes.) This present human induced phenomenon of ocean acidification is one of a series being seen as signigfificant by geochemists, atmospheric chemists, and geologists, who are considering the concept of the Anthropocene. (there are others) I know what carbonic acid is tstat, ok? Stop talking to us like we are little children; many of us have been on this forum since its inception so it is not as if the subject hasn't been discussed. You said most man made CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans. I know that to be wrong. However, there is something else at work here. Something that is curiously overlooked and/or ignored. It is a very basic chemistry law. Why is the ocean assumed to be like a giant swimming pool? How much have you actually read on the subject? Ocean "acidification" just another scaremongering AGW relic rolled out to replace the failed predictions.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 29, 2011 23:40:38 GMT
magellan. scpg02 makes an important point. The issue is not the percentage of CO2 which comes from human activity. CO2 naturally cycles. The issue is 'drivers'. Factors that are changing over time in a specific direction, (not natural cycles). CO2 is one of these. Burning of fossile fuels, eg. is not part of the natural carbon cycle. Using carbon isotope anlaysis it is easy to distinguish between the two. Regarding ocean acidification, the new, increased concentration of CO2, has now been shown to be dissolving in the ocean forming carbonic acid at an increasing rate due to increasing human induced emissions of CO2. CO2 then reacts with H2O to form carbonic acid which makes the oceans more acidic. This phenomenon is of importance for marine species which require a narrow pH range for survival. (biologic extinctions have historically been an important factor in defining geologic episodes.) This present human induced phenomenon of ocean acidification is one of a series being seen as signigfificant by geochemists, atmospheric chemists, and geologists, who are considering the concept of the Anthropocene. (there are others) I know what carbonic acid is tstat, ok? Stop talking to us like we are little children; many of us have been on this forum since its inception so it is not as if the subject hasn't been discussed. You said most man made CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans. I know that to be wrong. However, there is something else at work here. Something that is curiously overlooked and/or ignored. It is a very basic chemistry law. Why is the ocean assumed to be like a giant swimming pool? How much have you actually read on the subject? Ocean "acidification" just another scaremongering AGW relic rolled out to replace the failed predictions. Magellan, Good to hear you understand a bit of chemistry. Your original post suggested that you had an issue differentiating between the natural carbon cycle and the new carbon being introduced into the geochemical system by human activity. The natural carbon cycle is not a driver. It does not matter what % human activity adds. It is the addition that matters. you then wrote "You said most man made CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans. I know that to be wrong." I was referring to the carbon cycle. Human activity released CO2 is like natural CO2. It gets absorbed in proportion. you then wrote, "However, there is something else at work here. Something that is curiously overlooked and/or ignored. It is a very basic chemistry law. " okay...?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 30, 2011 2:10:12 GMT
Then we get to the nitrogen cycle.
Humans have sure made their mark here.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 1, 2011 1:13:55 GMT
Regardless of the aspects of the geochemical system humans could be affecting, it seems forum members are presently most interested in carbon.
Fair enough, but be aware, atmospheric chemistry and geophysics related to the Anthropocene is a broader debate.
whatever,
But this is a discussion forum. Feel free to say whatever.
if it's all about carbon and forget nitrogen... whatever
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 1, 2011 1:17:22 GMT
Thermostat: Right now, black carbon is the largest contributor to AGW. Take away the thermal properties of this, and you would see temp drop prob on the order of .5C.
That would indicate that the sensativity of climate to co2 is lower than currently some think at 3.0C per doubling.
As far as nitrogen. Yes, it is a potential problem, however, with the cost of it at this time, I don't forsee this as a long term problem at all.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 1, 2011 1:20:18 GMT
Thermostat: Right now, black carbon is the largest contributor to AGW. Take away the thermal properties of this, and you would see temp drop prob on the order of .5C. That would indicate that the sensativity of climate to co2 is lower than currently some think at 3.0C per doubling. As far as nitrogen. Yes, it is a potential problem, however, with the cost of it at this time, I don't forsee this as a long term problem at all. Sigurdur, What is your reference on black carbon?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 1, 2011 1:31:37 GMT
I have gotttttttttt to start saving the papers/articles I read.
Do a search using Shindell......Schmidt........
There was a paper/article just published lately about this. In fact, there are several.
|
|