Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

Your argument here ignores the fact that CO2 is a much more efficient green house gas than water vapor. CO2 accounts for apx 10% to 30% of the green house effect. Another issue is that water vapor is basically self regulating for a given temperature. ie: H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect linked to temperature which is linked to the level of CO2, CH4, and O3 in the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

So how come the scientific agencies and organizations who dont get there funding from specific special interest groups dont have numbers any where near what your saying? And even at 10 times the greenhouse effect number our .03 % is still only equivalent to a .3 % of total greenhouse effect. Thats still statistically below the valid minimum noise floor level. that would still mean the remaining 99.7% comes from naturally occurring sources.

Yes, the oceans are a huge CO2 sink. In fact, the CO2 absorption by the oceans is turning them acidic

Click to expand...

World wide sea water PH is between 7.5 and 8.4. My chemistry books say thats slightly alkaline (basic) and documented geochemistry tests and studies suggest it has been that way for a many millions of years now with only slight variations during the peaks and lows associated with the global ice ages.
For reference your sweat has a PH around 4.5 - 5 which is acidic. Typical potable water can be any where from 5.5 - 8.5 PH depending upon the compounds it contains.
CO2 levels in sea water are stable simply because so much of the plant bio mass is based there. They automatically take as much CO2 out of the water as is made available. This is a documented scientific fact as well and can be tested and proven in a high school level bio lab class.
Right now the ocean based biomass capable of converting CO2 in the water has a working capacity to handle the human annual output in about
three weeks time.
Also it has been shown the ocean based plant life has one of the highest reaction times to favorable conditions. Add a little of anything that it needs to grow and it explodes in growth until it has rebalanced its environment.
Algae blooms are a good example of how minute variations in a favorable source of nutriant material or compounds can generate a massive growth spurts in very short time frames of even as little as a few days! They absorb as much of the added nutrient as is possible then die off and sink to the bottom locking it away.


If your wondering, I am pulling this basic data off of rather general Google searches that bring up sites that have not been found to be liars and number fudgers!

The real scientific truth is really that easy to find. So easy even I can do it! (and thats not setting a very high standard)

If the oceans absorb enough CO2, will they fizz like beer? Carbonated drinks are only slightly acidic, didn't figure that reference above worth getting into, first time it came. Just another doomsday claim in the chain. I live in Florida, basically surrounded by ocean, haven't noticed any dire warnings concerning acid surf conditions. We have been seeing milder conditions these past few years. Hardly any hurricanes, temperatures haven't been as hot, not much of a winter so far (Global Warming), but understand the northern (Yankee) states are having a rough time of it. Wish the Canadians would keep the arctic winds on their side of the border, and quit coming down here during the winter. 55 mph isn't the same as 55 kph...

kchriste said:

milely face to a .
Yes, the oceans are a huge CO2 sink. In fact, the CO2 absorption by the oceans is turning them acidic. If the oceans get too acidic, then the corral reefs will die, shellfish will be unable to make shells and the ocean food chain starts to unravel.

Click to expand...

I keep seeing this statement and it really confuses me. I see demonstrations where they get acid and dissolve shells coral etc. However, when CO2 dissolves in water it produced carbonic acid. Carbonic acid combines with calcium to produce Calcium Carbonate. Shells and coral are made of Calcium Carbonate. Carbonic acid cannot dissolve shells and coral. Maybe my chemistry is not up to the job but is just sounds like a misleading statement to me.

Mike.

There is a similar debate going on over at CR4 right now.
Here is the link (if I did it right). CR4 - Thread: Greenhouse Effect Sounds Like a Great Idea (Part 2)

I learned some new things and found it rather interesting and informative.
Many of these guys have engineering and science degrees and are not paid by special interest groups so their data may actually be reasonably accurate but that also makes it a longer and rather more in depth read.

So the Eco-nuts may want to avoid it being these guys can back up their numbers and data with facts and figures that do check out!

tcmtech said:

If your wondering, I am pulling this basic data off of rather general Google searches that bring up sites that have not been found to be liars and number fudgers!

Click to expand...

How do you know how they are funded?
How do you know they are not liars and number fudgers?

Pommie said:

I keep seeing this statement and it really confuses me. I see demonstrations where they get acid and dissolve shells coral etc. However, when CO2 dissolves in water it produced carbonic acid.

Click to expand...

Yes it is counter intuitive:

Coral reefs are built from limestone by the reaction Ca²+ + CO3²- == CaCO3, where Ca is calcium. Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO3²- ions, which by le Chatlier’s principal shifts the equilibrium toward the left, tending to dissolve CaCO3. Note that this is a sort of counter-intuitive result, that adding CO2 should make reefs dissolve rather than pushing carbon into making more reefs. It’s all because of those H+ ions.

Click to expand...

PH is very important in organic systems. Human blood that has a pH below 7.35 is too acidic, whereas blood pH above 7.45 is too alkaline. ie: You can't breathe if your blood pH is out of whack even a little. Not that your blood is linked to sea water, just pointing out the importance of pH for living things.

How do you know how they are funded?
How do you know they are not liars and number fudgers?

Click to expand...

I get most of my relevant information from the USGS sites and their related international cousins. They are typically the non profit and unbiased agencies that tell both sides of the issues in a scientific and non politically motivated/biased way. They get paid to do their work regardless of what happens or what they find for good or bad.

They are known for providing practical numbers and related data with the percentage of errors and explanations of variations in their findings. Scare tactics and wild theorizing are not their thing.
They also typically don't all get much political or public recognition for their work being they dont carry any serious ties to any particular political party or agenda and have yet to ever seriously get their butts in the fire for doing questionable data twisting. When they do occasionally find their information is wrong or incomplete they are typically the first ones to point it out.

Check them out yourself . Welcome to the USGS - U.S. Geological Survey

See what you think and what opinions you can get from them or any of the other world wide agencies they work with. It about as fair, honest and unbiased scientifically based ecological, environmental, and geological information as I have yet to find.

They give me reasons to want to change my ways for the better and yet still debate the Eco-nuts that are spewing false information and politically biased information every chance I can!

I too want the world to be a better place but I know that faking data, covering up information, and making up lies to get people to change will never help anything.

kchriste said:

Now you are getting it! You can see that water vapor both deflects AND keeps the solar heat in on the Earth. CO2 works in the same manner but the ratio of the Earth's solar heat absorption vs radiation is much higher with CO2. It allows much more heat in than it lets out. This is why CO2 is a much more significant green house gas than it's meager % of atmospheric composition lets on.

Click to expand...

This is not correct. You would do well to study Prandtl Numbers for CO2. This is a number approximating the ratio of momentum diffusivity (kinetic viscosity) & thermal diffusivity & is used for heat transfer & convection calculations. What it means is that the thermal gradiant (heat transfer) moves from a high density medium to a low density medium. Now the atmospheric density varies from high at ground level to low at upper atmosphere levels. This tells me that CO2 actually assists in heat dissipation. This results in a thermal feedback were surface temperature increases thus releasing huge amounts of CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 assists in the cooling process & then is re-absorbed into the oceans.
The IPCC seems to have agreed that CO2 increases are the CAUSE of temperature increases not the RESULT of temperature increases.
I do not agree with that conclusion.

tcmtech said:

Check them out yourself . Welcome to the USGS - U.S. Geological Survey

Click to expand...

Definately a credible source of information.

I too want the world to be a better place but I know that faking data, covering up information, and making up lies to get people to change will never help anything.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Those emails have done nothing good in the interests of rational debate. I still question the timing of their release but that could just be coincidence. Hopefully people have learned something from all this.

Ross Craney said:

This is not correct. You would do well to study Prandtl Numbers for CO2.

Click to expand...

Would be valid if space was thermally conductive.

kchriste said:

Quote:
Coral reefs are built from limestone by the reaction Ca²+ + CO3²- == CaCO3, where Ca is calcium. Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO3²- ions, which by le Chatlier’s principal shifts the equilibrium toward the left, tending to dissolve CaCO3. Note that this is a sort of counter-intuitive result, that adding CO2 should make reefs dissolve rather than pushing carbon into making more reefs. It’s all because of those H+ ions.

Click to expand...

When you add Cardon Dioxide you increase the number of carbonate ions.

CO2+H2O->H2CO3

Which is the same as 2H+ + CO3²ˉ

Mike.

With good news like this, I guess it's ok for me to go burn a few rubber tires and roofing shingles.

kchriste said:

Would be valid if space was thermally conductive.

Click to expand...

Correct - heat is dissipated through spectural radiation

As far as CO2 and ocean water goes, is it really an issue? Considering the air is only .038% CO2 and even the most nightmares predictions don't have it increasing by orders of magnitudes, how much Co2 can possible be disolving into the ocean at sea level? obviously the ocean can sink a lot of Co2 just becaues of it's volume, but doesn't plankton take care of a lot of that the photosynthesis ties it up so wouldn't the effective PH tend to self regulate?

Sceadwian said:

As far as CO2 and ocean water goes, is it really an issue? Considering the air is only .038% CO2 and even the most nightmares predictions don't have it increasing by orders of magnitudes, how much Co2 can possible be disolving into the ocean at sea level? obviously the ocean can sink a lot of Co2 just becaues of it's volume, but doesn't plankton take care of a lot of that the photosynthesis ties it up so wouldn't the effective PH tend to self regulate?

Click to expand...

Got a hunch it kind of depends on where the samples are being taken. I'm sure samples take where industrial was and raw sewage are dumped, are considerably different from samples taken several miles out away from land and man. Not to mention cruise ships and airlines purging their toilet tanks...

Face it all undesirable environmental events are caused by CO2 emissions. Leaves on my oak trees are turning brown and falling all over the place, what a mess. Guess the can't handle the elevated CO2 levels, guess they will die and fall on my house, when the global temperature rises another 0.06 degrees C. My Ford Explorer is running roughly, guess I need to put in the shop, and see if the can compensate for the excessive CO2 in the atmosphere...

Simply put, chaos can't be predicted with any level of certainty.
I have an open mind and want to steward the environment like the next man. I'm not going to vote to restrict my freedoms to do so. Obama is a one termer for failing to realize socialism will not work in this country. (Speaking as an American) Nothing I can think of that could be worse for a POTUS than being a one termer.

Aren't pretty much all living creatures based on carbon compounds? Don't we all inhale and exhale CO2, wouldn't we die if we could bring some carbon into our bodies? An abundance of available carbon, would seem to encourage growth and reproduction in many plants and animals. Heat is also energy, also a good thing for all living things. Perhaps there are good things to come from this warming trend (if it actually exist off paper).

ke5, given a known percentage of C02 concentration in the air, known atmospheric pressure, and known dissolution rate at those temperatures and pressures, there has to be a RANGE of known possible dissolution rates from a gas to a liquid a way to calculate what the bulk change will do to PH, and at least a rough guess how sea life might play a factor.

The concentration of C02 in the atmosphere is so low, and so little is known about the carbon cycle in general that it's all completely random from the start until every physical model of the earth and it's ecological systems have been proven correct, and the internal structure of the earth is still not well understood, let alone even small ecological system.

I mean seriously, there really isn't anything to discuss because there are no known values to start from in the first place, not even ONE single variable has a known real world mechanics that pan out on a global scale.

HarveyH42 said:

Aren't pretty much all living creatures based on carbon compounds?

Click to expand...

Yes, except for some of those on StarTrek.

HarveyH42 said:

Don't we all inhale and exhale CO2

Click to expand...

No, we exhale more CO2 than we inhale, while plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2 and other gasses.

HarveyH42 said:

Heat is also energy, also a good thing for all living things.

Click to expand...

Care to take a wander in the Sahara? How about a lobster in a pot?

HarveyH42 said:

Perhaps there are good things to come from this warming trend (if it actually exist off paper)

Click to expand...

For some areas, yes, life would improve. For those in tropical or low lying areas, no.

ke5frf said:

Obama is a one termer for failing to realize socialism will not work in this country. (Speaking as an American)

Click to expand...

Correct. The Rabid Right Wingers will ensure that it doesn't, even if they have to destroy the country to prove it.

Ross Craney said:

Correct - heat is dissipated through spectural radiation

Click to expand...

Yes.... And you know, of course, that CO2 is more transparent to the incoming sun light than the Earth's emitted infrared energy.