Pop Quiz for Climatistas

_{PaV
January 25, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I wonder what you make of this “Keeling Curve.” I especially wonder what you make of the inset–which can be seen to oscillate on the actual graph of this ‘curve’ below the inset.

This might be a very teachable moment.

I await your brilliant responses.

Comments

MR, you have obviously failed to read the linked corrective, and seem to imagine that gratuitously slandering someone now unable to defend himself, is a responsible pattern of behaviour. Duly noted. Ilk duly recognised. KFkairosfocus_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

what a cast of characters this place has! "Formally"? you're "formally" telling me you don't like a turn of phrase? Let me hereby formally inform you that I consider the phrase "gish gallop" accurately describes DATCG's diversionary tactics. For this reason, I must further inform you that I will continue to use this phrase as and when I consider it to fairly and reasonably describe the actions of a commenter on this website.mullers_ratchet_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

MR, I formally draw your attention to a corrective regarding a term of abuse and slander you have resorted to yet again: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/notice-on-the-gish-gallop-false-accusation-tactic-and-fallacious-dodge/ I suggest that in future you refrain yourself from such a trollish reference. KFkairosfocus_{January 27, 2018
January
01
Jan
27
27
2018
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

I would usually indulge a gish-galloper, but this made me laugh...
Graph of Climate Change… Last Thousand Years European Climatic Changes
Do you know what data was used to reconstruct that temperature? Or where the graph comes from?mullers_ratchet_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

A different opinion on ocean acidification by Jim Steele... How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies
Bednarsek assumes anthropogenic carbon is mostly accumulating near the surface based on modeling results. However as detailed in Part 2*, all ocean acidification models are deeply flawed based on an incorrect assumption that CO2 enters the ocean and is then transported like an inert tracer. But CO2 is not inert! When CO2 first invades sunlit surface waters, it indeed dissolves into 3 forms of inorganic carbon (DIC) and lowers pH (DIC is discussed in How Gaia and Coral Reefs Regulate Ocean pH). But in contrast to those models, DIC is rapidly assimilated into particulate organic carbon via photosynthesis, which raises pH. Particulate organic carbon (alive or dead) is heavy, and if not consumed and recycled, it sinks. For millions of years, this process created and maintained a DIC/pH gradient with high pH/low DIC near the surface and low pH/higher DIC at depth. Gravity drives the biological pump and removes a significant proportion of organic carbon (assimilated from both natural and anthropogenic carbon). That carbon is transported to depths where it can be harmlessly sequestered for hundreds to thousands of years. However NOAA’s models fail to account for the biological pump, based on the narrow belief that carbon storage is strictly “a chemical and physical response to rising atmospheric CO2” (Sabine 2010). In contrast to Bednarsek’s anthropogenic hypothesis, an increase in the assimilation of CO2 and an efficient biological pump can prevent a decrease in surface pH and calcium carbonate saturation. In fact experiments show CO2 is often a limiting nutrient. Mesocosm experiments found that when atmospheric CO2 was increased, primary production by plankton community consumed 39% more DIC. When primary production increases, more carbon is shuttled to depth.
*Part 2... Are the Oceans’ Upper Layers Really Acidifying?
However, unlike inert CFCs, any CO2 entering sunlit waters is quickly converted to heavy organic matter by photosynthesis. Although dissolved CFCs and dissolved carbon are passively transported in the same manner, particulate organic carbon (alive or dead) behaves very differently. Particulate carbon rapidly sinks, removing carbon from the surface to depth in ways CFC tracers fail to simulate. Examination of the literature suggests “various methods and measurements have produced estimates of sinking velocities for organic particles that span a huge range of 5 to 2700 meters per day, but that commonly lie between tens to a few hundred meters per day”. Low estimates are biased by suspended particles that are averaged with sinking particles. Faster sinking rates are observed for pteropod shells, foraminifera, diatoms, coccolithophorids, zooplankton carapaces and feces aggregations, etc that are all capable of sinking 500 to 1000 meters per day. These sinking rates are much too rapid to allow respired CO2 from their decomposition to acidify either the source waters of upwelling such as along the Oregon and California coast, or the surface waters
.DATCG_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Graph of Climate Change... Last Thousand Years European Climatic Changes What human influence led to the Medieval Optimum? What caused Little Ice Age? How does Modern Era compare to both Medieval Optimum and Little Ice Age? What is worse. To little CO2? Or more CO2? What amount of CO2 is good for plants and vegetation?DATCG_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

dated Oct 2017... Great Barrier Reef Returning to Life
"'The majority of coral colonies on the inshore reefs have regained their color and the growth of some colonies was so good they had overgrown our original research tags,' Dr Bay said."
DATCG_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

“Did you look at the graph? Please explain the exponential rise of CO2 levels in the Antartica ice cores starting in the 1800’s.“ I think that Mullers_ratchet explained this. This is further supported by the dramatic increase in lead deposition in Anartica in the 1800s as recorded in the ice cores. Atmospheric circulation and the climate of the Antarctic, make it very good at recording historic conditions.Molson Bleu_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

You may have heard of the industrial revolution...mullers_ratchet_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

muller's ratchet: Did you look at the graph? Please explain the exponential rise of CO2 levels in the Antartica ice cores starting in the 1800's. Was the ocean "gaining" CO2 then? And, if it was, then WHERE did all the extra CO2 come from? If you can't answer that question, then realize you stopped thinking a long time ago.PaV_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Really, what is wrong with you?
Or, maybe, the earth’s core has warmed up, with the concomitant heating up of the oceans, which then release CO2. Much more plausible.
The. Oceans. Are. Gaining. CO2.mullers_ratchet_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

mullers_ratchet:
Acidification is not made up, it’s very clear that the ocean is absorbing CO2 and pH is lowerig as a result. It can’t be an “excuse” for the failure of temperature to rise because (i) it doesn’t provide an explanation as to why temps wouldn’t rise and (ii) temperatures are rising.
Maybe my recollection of all this is wrong, but what I remember is some statement made within the last year, or two, saying that the reason for the global warming hiatus is that the ocean's have been absorbing CO2. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I remember. Just found this. I quote:
The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.
As to increased CO2 production, see this graph taken from Antartica ice cores. CO2 production begins to skyrocket in the early-t0-mid 1800's. So, I guess humans have been putting 4% extra CO2 into the atmosphere for over 150 years. Or, maybe, the earth's core has warmed up, with the concomitant heating up of the oceans, which then release CO2. Much more plausible.PaV_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Why are you like this? What would happen if you just admitted you didn't know very much abotu this topic, and perhaps you had it all wrong? This last comment is just strange.
The “acidification” scheme reminds us here at UD of evolutionary explanations: all of them are ex post facto. Another name for them is this: excuses. Global warmists, intent on explaining why temperatures are not rising even as CO2 levels are rising–that is, the Keeling Curve, have come up with this notion. It is no more than ‘hand-waving,’ a la most ‘evolutionary’ explanations of the facts.
Where did you get this from? Acidification is not made up, it's very clear that the ocean is absorbing CO2 and pH is lowerig as a result. It can't be an "excuse" for the failure of temperature to rise because (i) it doesn't provide an explanation as to why temps wouldn't rise and (ii) temperatures are rising. So what the hell are you on about?
As to the 4%, again, if humans stopped producing fossil fuel emissions, would the total CO2 in the atmosphere “go down” 4% each year until it became 0% And since CO2 levels won’t keep going ‘down’ if fossil fuels are no longer burned, then what makes you think that CO2 levels will keep going ‘up’?
Remember, you first made the ignorant claim that adding 4% to the flux would only lead to a 4% increase in the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you at least admit you had that wrong? If we take fossil CO2 that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and pump it into the atmosphere it will stay there (and be absorbed by the ocean). We know we are responsible for all of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere because our emissions are considerbly greater than the amount added. It's really as simple as that.
This makes no sense. So, we look for another answer (and, it’s easy): CO2 condensates found in the ocean are slowly finding their way into the atmosphere because the oceans are warming up, ever so slightly.
If the recent increase in CO2 is coming from the oceans, where does all the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels go? Rememember, the year-on-year increase is in the atmosphere is less than the amount we release (because a lot of it goes into the ocean). If the extra atmospheric CO2 is coming from an unknown source in the ocean, where is all out CO2 hiding?mullers_ratchet_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Warmers simply do not care if they waste- someone else's time, someone else's money, science's credibility, and my patience. They made a squiggly line that goes up on the right end, and by a God they don't have any evidence for, you're gonna become a believer in it, and if you don't, they'll hate you for it. Andrewasauber_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

First off, c02 is not a well mixed gas as NASA's own data reveals, and it is heavier than air - see article. This is extremely important as you have yet another key assumption (Like the falsified assumption Al Gore used as a "smoking gun", that atmospheric c02 drives up temps, instead we found temps drive out more c02). So what you get from a sensor on a volcano is background c02 at a particular altitude, and particular latitude - they also apply a 70 year smoothing average to this data (just like they did when picking the absolute lowest ICE core c02 proxy data- then moved it over 35 years to have it magically line up perfectly with the Keeling curve), and the calibration rights to this and other "official" sensors around the globe are in the hands of former IPCC members. The well mixed gas concept was assumed from the get go - in fact the IPCC through out 9K regional chemical analysis of c02 during the 20th century, other very important stomatal proxy evidence. So from the very lowest values they could pick, they then smoothed it with a 70 year average to take out the inconvenient normal variations with time which can be large - in fact it was well accepted before this nonsense, that c02 was at least 425ppm in the early 1940's and almost as high two other times in the 20th century - so from the ground up, the make the data fit the theory, and they ignore graph that clearly showed a temp rise from the late 1920's to the early 40's, AND hide the 2.4F cooling from the late 40's through the 70's - these are their own graphs, and even their own words contradict what they say now. The entire "thoery" is built out of fraud from the start. As Willie Soon tries to point out to us, almost everything that lives produces c02, and many abiotic systems as well. Example - plain old soil puts out 9X the amount of c02 than ALL of man's activities, termites 2X the c02 than man's use of FF. This is not science, it is a purposefully non-falsifiable thoery - if it were evaluated as other non-political hypotheses, it would be thrown out in a heartbeat. If you have to heavily alter existing and current data, use less and less ground temp stations, and use mainly those that suffer from UHI effects, get rid of the medieval warm period and get caught in emails that you had to do it to make your point, when allow a warmunist activist admin privileges on wiki, and he hides well over 100 papers about the ice age scare of the 70's, and still call yourself scientists then you should feel very ashamed over this agenda driven bull. http://drtimball.com/2013/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/ https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%E2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/Tom Robbins_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

PS to my #27: I can envision a scenario where, for example, turning a faucet down by 50% would allow the tub/sink to drain completely (i.e., the level would decrease by 100%).daveS_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

PaV, Well, I'm simply essentially saying that without more details, we cannot say whether the CO2 concentration would fall by only 4% if humans stopped producing CO2 emissions. Isn't that correct? I don't know what the new equilibrium would be, but it's not at all clear that it would be ~390 ppm (4% less than the current level) based only on the sink analogy.daveS_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

daveS: I need more details.PaV_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

"The “acidification” scheme reminds us here at UD of evolutionary explanations: all of them are ex post facto. Another name for them is this: excuses." I don't claim to be an expert on global warming and climate change, but I do know a bit about the oceans. CO2 is seldom a limiting nutrient in the ocean, it is usually nitrogen and/or phosphorus. The oceans act as a sink for CO2, through algal growth and subsequent death, and through incorporation in shells and corals. However, if the amount of CO2 entering the ocean exceeds the amount incorporated into organisms and shells, then the ocean becomes more acidic, which it is. Whether this is due to global warming, I don't know. I leave those conclusions to the experts in the field.Molson Bleu_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

PaV,
Ask yourself this question: What would happen if all man-made CO2 ceased being made? Wouldn’t you expect atmospheric CO2 levels to fall by 4%? Then, contrariwise, the CO2 levels should only be 4% above the 315 ppm level. So, why are they 405 ppm?
Based on further analysis of the sink analogy, do you agree that it's not necessarily the case that CO2 levels would fall by only 4% if humans stopped producing CO2 emissions?daveS_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

For Warmists, every question about a very complex weather system resolves into protecting the AGW story. LOL Its funny to watch. Andrewasauber_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

mullers_ratchet:
4% is the human controbution to the flux of CO2 (the in-flow). What I’m trying to tell you is that the amount of CO2 we’ve added in the last few decades is considerably greater than the amount that has accrued in the atmosphere. Very hard to blame natural causes given this fact. (The rest of it has gone into the ocean, which is why (whether you belive it or not) the ocean’s disoved CO2 has risen and pH has fallen).
The "acidification" scheme reminds us here at UD of evolutionary explanations: all of them are ex post facto. Another name for them is this: excuses. Global warmists, intent on explaining why temperatures are not rising even as CO2 levels are rising--that is, the Keeling Curve, have come up with this notion. It is no more than 'hand-waving,' a la most 'evolutionary' explanations of the facts. As to the 4%, again, if humans stopped producing fossil fuel emissions, would the total CO2 in the atmosphere "go down" 4% each year until it became 0%? The obvious answer is "no." And since CO2 levels won't keep going 'down' if fossil fuels are no longer burned, then what makes you think that CO2 levels will keep going 'up'? This makes no sense. So, we look for another answer (and, it's easy): CO2 condensates found in the ocean are slowly finding their way into the atmosphere because the oceans are warming up, ever so slightly.PaV_{January 26, 2018
January
01
Jan
26
26
2018
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

PaV,
If the bathtub is “filling up,” then there is no established ‘equilibrium,’ and you would be foolish to leave the premises. However, if there is an equilibrium, then what becomes critical is the relationship between the added rise in water level (which increases the ‘pressure’ felt by the water issuing forth from the sink) and the flow rate.
Indeed. What I intended was that you fill the tub to some particular level (say 50%) and then adjust the tap until it is at equilibrium. Then increase the flow by 4%. What happens from that point on would depend on the specifics, as mullers_ratchet stated. Without more information, I don't think we can say whether the water level will increase only slightly or whether the tub will overflow. I don't know anything about atmospheric sciences; I'll stick to bathtubs.daveS_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

You’re acting as if the sink somehow got plugged up. If that were to have happened, then, yes, the sink would overflow. But, instead, you have a steady-state equation, with the increased in-flow increasing the out-flow...
For the sink example, increased height may change that out-flow slightly, but derterming wether a given in-flow will reach a new equilibrium height is not straigtfoward and depends on the shape of the sink (among other things). It's certainly not true that because the rate of inflow icnreases by 4% the volume of the sink should increase by the same amount only! Also, the atmosphere is not a bathtub.
What is this sentence supposed to mean? 4% is 4%.
4% is the human controbution to the flux of CO2 (the in-flow). What I'm trying to tell you is that the amount of CO2 we've added in the last few decades is considerably greater than the amount that has accrued in the atmosphere. Very hard to blame natural causes given this fact. (The rest of it has gone into the ocean, which is why (whether you belive it or not) the ocean's disoved CO2 has risen and pH has fallen).mullers_ratchet_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

So I'm guessing daveS and m_r know the C02 cycle with certainty due to their tireless study of it between UD blog comments. Andrewasauber_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

PaV, You have to remember that Warmists (presumably like daveS and mullers_ratchet) are committed to The Narrative, and therefore cannot process even a little adverse information. They can't distinguish that rational thought may exist outside of the Global Warming paradigm. In layman's terms, they are brainwashed. Andrewasauber_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

BA77: Nice to have you back. I love this:
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth.
"The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!"PaV_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

daveS: If the bathtub is "filling up," then there is no established 'equilibrium,' and you would be foolish to leave the premises. However, if there is an equilibrium, then what becomes critical is the relationship between the added rise in water level (which increases the 'pressure' felt by the water issuing forth from the sink) and the flow rate. Even CO2 silliness presumes that an equilibrium existed prior to man-made emissions. So, nice try, but equilibrium CO2 levels should be, roughly, about 4% higher, and no more. Are we to believe that a system capable of handling 24 times more than man-made emissions is going to be run off the road by the additional 4%? Who can believe such tripe? There was a "little Ice Age" back in the 1700's. How did that end? Man-made emissions? Would you like to proffer some explanation?PaV_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

PaV,
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%.
Why don't you try this with your bathtub. Turn up the flow 4% and leave for the weekend. Bonus points if you live in a 2nd floor apartment. :PdaveS_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

muller's ratchet:
If the amount of water going into the sink is more than the amount draining from it the water level will rise constantly. It doesn’t stop when it get’s to 4% more.
Did you think about what you just wrote? You're acting as if the sink somehow got plugged up. If that were to have happened, then, yes, the sink would overflow. But, instead, you have a steady-state equation, with the increased in-flow increasing the out-flow, with a new equilibrium being established: i.e., the level in the sink will be relatively higher. (4% is not 50%, which could possibly be tolerated if the sink is deep enough)
Human emissions are considerably greater than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere in recent times, largely because the oceans are gaining not losing dissolved CO2 (you may have heard of ocean acidification).
What is this sentence supposed to mean? 4% is 4%. And, BTW, "ocean acidification" is pure propaganda, intended to explain the "global warming," oops!, the "climate change" hiatus. It's bogus nonsense. Sophisticated bloviation,no more.PaV_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply