kallend 2,131
Recommended Posts
quade 4
lawrocketThis is, of course, assuming that additional CO2 does not mean a feast for plankton, who will ...
The issue here is the assumption the plankton have rapid access to the excess CO2. For the most part, they don't. The plankton who live at the interface between air and ocean might see a bit more, but the vast majority of the ocean's plankton do not exist directly on the surface of the water. For the CO2 to benefit those deeper it will have to have been captured by the water first. This is a function of aeration and temperature. It also requires an enormous amount of human scale time and there is only so much the ocean will be able to absorb. We are quickly reaching that amount now.
Additionally, ocean capture of CO2 causes other problems like an increase in its acidity. Obviously this would have other effects on living things in the ocean.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
(1) So you're saying that the scientists knew that they were getting into a dicey situation?
(2) I recall the ice melt and haven't been able to perform an experiment, as I can't think of how to control the variables;
(3) Do you think that Antarctic sea ice therefore increases in the summer due to the increased melt of Antarctic shelf ice?
(4) Your theory is at odds with the consensus. [Url]http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/warm-ocean-rapidly-melting-antarctic-ice-shelf-from-below/[/url]
Note that NASA itself alleges that the ocean is not freezing runoff. Rather, that the warming sea water is melting the existing ice. This was three months ago, where shelf ice (not one of the land-based ice shelfs) was melting because the sea water was too warm. How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there? I don't have an answer, but the science apparently isn't settled. Thus you have joined the ranks of the climate skeptic because your theory suggests that the cutting edge research is all wrong. Sea ice cannot be sustained, much less formed, by the increasing ocean temperature. That's what the real scientists say.
(6) The increase in ice increases albedo, thus leading to a positive feedback. Are we reaching a tipping point for snowball southern hemisphere?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
(2) I recall the ice melt and haven't been able to perform an experiment, as I can't think of how to control the variables;
(3) Do you think that Antarctic sea ice therefore increases in the summer due to the increased melt of Antarctic shelf ice?
(4) Your theory is at odds with the consensus. [Url]http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/warm-ocean-rapidly-melting-antarctic-ice-shelf-from-below/[/url]
Note that NASA itself alleges that the ocean is not freezing runoff. Rather, that the warming sea water is melting the existing ice. This was three months ago, where shelf ice (not one of the land-based ice shelfs) was melting because the sea water was too warm. How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there? I don't have an answer, but the science apparently isn't settled. Thus you have joined the ranks of the climate skeptic because your theory suggests that the cutting edge research is all wrong. Sea ice cannot be sustained, much less formed, by the increasing ocean temperature. That's what the real scientists say.
(6) The increase in ice increases albedo, thus leading to a positive feedback. Are we reaching a tipping point for snowball southern hemisphere?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Look - does the CO2 mix or not? I say it does. That CO2 that does not mix with the ocean is not a problem for the ocean. That which does creates acidification and a food source, in which case the ocean captures and sequesters it when the phytoplankton dies and sinks.
There is a relationship. With the acidification happen and kill the plankton before it can be used? Or will the plankton bloom because of it, thus mitigating acidification? Or a mixture of the two?
The O2 depletion is would cause is the biggest problem I see. Dead oceans ain't no fun. But I can think of a better way to sequester carbon than to let diatoms use it, die, and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
It's a lot more complicated than, "the ocean will acidify."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
There is a relationship. With the acidification happen and kill the plankton before it can be used? Or will the plankton bloom because of it, thus mitigating acidification? Or a mixture of the two?
The O2 depletion is would cause is the biggest problem I see. Dead oceans ain't no fun. But I can think of a better way to sequester carbon than to let diatoms use it, die, and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
It's a lot more complicated than, "the ocean will acidify."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 4
lawrocketIt's a lot more complicated than, ...
You're right! So why did you imply it was so simple just plankton would take care of it?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade***It's a lot more complicated than, ...
You're right! So why did you imply it was so simple just plankton would take care of it?
I didn't.
[Quote]The situation is a bit more dynamic. Phytoplankton are remarkably greedy with carbon and sequester large volumes of it. I haven't read much of anything on the relationship between carbon fixing organisms and the Revelle factor, but I'm sure there's literature out there.
I actually said there's stuff involved in the dynamic that I don't know about. I.e. Revelle.
I'm stunned that writing "I haven't read much on..." is now taken to mean I'm saying it's simple. No. There are variables that I don't know how they interplay.
My stated ignorance of the dynamics should be read as "lawrocket admits there are dynamics he doesn't know about" and not lawrocket implies "it was so simple just plankton would take care of it?"
My wife is hotter than your wife.
turtlespeed 226
Andy9o8I've lost track of how many times in your threads people have to issue the reminder that weather is not climate.
Y'know, in the year 267 through 293, we had record rainfall, and more hurricanes than ever reported ever, and it was all due to Saturn's retrograde orbit compared to the moon's eclipse.
But . . . hey, that was just weather.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
First, and foremost, I'd like to thank you for a rationale reply. You've always been good about that.
And how much does "climate/weather" really impact that?
Agreed. And how much does "climate/weather" really impact that?
Agreed. How much does US government policy impact that?
In the supply of what?
Agreed, that would be very bad.
In my understanding, half of the CO2 released is absorbed back into the earth. There are many sinks in that equation, the oceans being a big one. But, the oceans are incredibly large. I'm not saying releasing large amounts of CO2 on a continuing basis is ok. It's not. But, the alternatives being advocated by the US/Western democracies are not going to make a bit of difference in that equation. All that will change is more money out of our pockets, and more control in government hands, IMO.
Nuclear is the only way to go, be it fission or fusion.
Thanks again for a rationale reply.
Quote
Unlikely. OTOH, change the condition such that the earth cannot maintain a 7B population of humans? Quite plausible.
And how much does "climate/weather" really impact that?
Quote
We're using resources faster than they are replenished.
Agreed. And how much does "climate/weather" really impact that?
Quote
The planet may be capable of support even more humans if we managed resources better, but we don't.
Agreed. How much does US government policy impact that?
Quote
Any drop in the supply would result in substantial deaths or at least quality of life.
In the supply of what?
Quote
The doom scenario that requires the most attention paid is ones that affect plankton growth in the seas. Any substantial change in the growth rate of plankton disrupts the entire food chain, as well as oxygen production.
Agreed, that would be very bad.
Quote
More carbon in the atmosphere means (eventually) more carbon absorbed by the waters, which changes the acidity.
In my understanding, half of the CO2 released is absorbed back into the earth. There are many sinks in that equation, the oceans being a big one. But, the oceans are incredibly large. I'm not saying releasing large amounts of CO2 on a continuing basis is ok. It's not. But, the alternatives being advocated by the US/Western democracies are not going to make a bit of difference in that equation. All that will change is more money out of our pockets, and more control in government hands, IMO.
Nuclear is the only way to go, be it fission or fusion.
Thanks again for a rationale reply.
We are all engines of karma
brenthutch 444
quade***It's a lot more complicated than, ...
You're right! So why did you imply it was so simple just plankton would take care of it?
Take care of what? The warmist are promulgating a solution to a non-existing problem.
kallend 2,131
lawrocket(1) So you're saying that the scientists knew that they were getting into a dicey situation?
Quit making with the strawmen.
The captain makes the decisions, not the passengers.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I've already written I blame the captain first and foremost.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
It's all part of gods plan to make the rich richer.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Andy9o8 2
lawrocketI've already written I blame the captain first and foremost.
Ha. A fair reading of your post #8 is that, while you did blame him, you didn't blame him first and foremost.
Anyhow, it's never the captain who dies - it's always the nameless crewman in a red shirt.
brenthutch 444
There has been a strong and statistically significant upward trend in climate-change-related public-relations disasters. AKA the Gore effect.
Andy9o8
Anyhow, it's never the captain who dies - it's always the nameless crewman in a red shirt.
Esp in Italy.
Absurdly unlikely since all climate scientists know that Antarctic SEA ice is increasing, while the continental ice is melting. providing fresh water run off into the cold salty ocean where it re-freezes to form sea ice. Salt and water form an eutectic mixture that remains liquid well below 0 degrees C, so fresh water entering the ocean refreezes.
ASIDE: I just got back from Patagonia and visited 3 glaciers there. The Southern Patagonian Ice Field has exhibited retreat on 42 glaciers, while four glaciers were in equilibrium and two advanced during the years between 1944 and now.
Earlier this year I was in Glacier N.P. in Montana. That has lost some 75 glaciers over the past 100 years and ALL its glaciers are retreating.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites