Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Mark...what about the fact that what you are claiming is happening...is all based on bad data.
|
What bad data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
All of the computer generated models that were being used by scientists working for Green Energy companies were founded on a basic premise of CO2 rising.
|
I am not talking about computer models. I am talking about real, measurable changes that are happening today. Increase CO2 (and other greenshouse gases) are rising. The earth's temperature IS rising. Drought, forest fires etc ARE on the rise, the are more record-breaking high heat days than ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Now the Earth (as it alwasy does), has adapted and the ocean is absorbing CO2 at a much greater rate than all of those computer models took into account.
|
Stop there:
- The amount of CO2 we have put into the air is much higher than it has ever been.
- CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.
- Ocean absorbs only 25% of the total CO2 we pump into the air.
Furthermore, the rate at which the ocean absorbs the CO2 is DROPPING. Read this: (from
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/ke...ceans-take-up/)
Quote:
More than 50 years ago, the late Scripps Director Roger Revelle defined a term now known as the Revelle Factor to describe this aspect of the relationship between the changing composition of seawater and the overlying atmosphere.
Dickson noted there are other factors at play. Human fossil fuel use is also behind a general warming trend in the oceans observed over the past 50 years that increases the resistance to CO2 uptake. Furthermore, in the absence of such warming, ocean mixing would normally be expected to be constantly refreshing the water at the ocean?s surface, the place where it meets with air and dissolves CO2. Instead global warming leaves surface water in place to an increasing degree thus slowing down the transfer of CO2 from the ocean surface deeper into the ocean. It?s as if the pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere into the surface water and then on deeper into the ocean had slowed down.
This slowing of ocean mixing may have another effect. It stifles the transport of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate from deeper waters to the surface, which diminishes the growth of phytoplankton, which store carbon in their tissue as a product of photosynthesis. The sinking tissue takes the carbon with it to the deep ocean when the organisms die. It?s another way that carbon can be removed from the ocean surface.
All this adds up to what scientists expect to be a gradual slowing of ocean CO2 uptake if human fossil fuel use continues to accelerate. As a smaller fraction of the excess CO2 goes into the oceans, a larger fraction may remain in the atmosphere, and the chemical changes in seawater that can affect organisms will continue to grow in lockstep with the relentless increases in the excess CO2 in the overlying atmosphere caused by human activities.
A major factor governing the rate of uptake of CO2 by the oceans is pace at which global CO2 emissions are increasing over time. Over the past decades, fossil emissions (measured as tons of carbon) have grown at 2 to 4 percent annually, from around 2 billion tons in 1950 to 9 billion tons today. The oceans as a whole have a large capacity for absorbing CO2, but ocean mixing is too slow to have spread this additional CO2 deep into the ocean.
As a result, ocean waters deeper than 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) have a large but still unrealized absorption capacity, said Scripps geochemist Ralph Keeling. The rapid emissions growth is unlikely to continue much longer as the reserves of conventional of oil, coal, and gas become depleted and steps are taken to reduce emissions and limit climate impacts. As emissions slow in the future, the oceans will continue to absorb excess CO2 emitted in the past that is still in the air, and this excess will spread into ever-deeper layers of the ocean. The ocean uptake, when expressed as a percent of emissions, will therefore inevitably increase and eventually, 50 to 80 percent of CO2 cumulative emissions will likely reside in the oceans, Keeling said.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
I've brought this up several times in these threads with you. But you just keep repeating the Democrat Party mantra of "deniers" while you yourself are in denial over the bad data that global warming is based upon.
|
My position on the subject has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Maybe I'm interpreting what you are writing in the wrong way...but it sure does sound to me like you don't give a damn about any new data. The old science of global warming is the gospel and new data is tossed aside as if it doesn't exist.
|
I read about and watch TV about climate change every chance I get. The new data is showing that things are worse than predicted, not better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
To me...that's not "science". That's religion.
|
I stand with Bill Maher on this. People who counter scientific facts with religious "facts" are scared stupid idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
And the article grapesoda just posted reveals that the scientists being funded by groups with major investment in green energy are indeed deliberately not reporting the new data.
|
And "scientists" funded by big oil should be taken on their word when they say "everything is *cough cough* fine"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Doesn't that make you pause for a second and question that? Does anything make you question what the govt. is up to at any given moment?
There is a LOT of money being made in the "Carbon Credit" business right now. It doesn't "save" the Earth one bit. But it's making a ton of money for some very rich people.
|
See, I see this from completely the opposite end. I see old rich republicans getting richer because they are paid to push big oil, and think that "carbon credit" is being demonized by big oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit "off" if the true purpose was to "save the planet"?
|
There's nothing wrong with making money to save the planet. Going "Green" can be very profitable and create a ton of new jobs. The words "Job Killer", especially in US politics, has been attributed to Green energy which it isn't at all - it's just more "noise" put out by Big Oil, Kochs, and republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
I know you won't even CONSIDER that at all. But I'm telling you...you're behind on the science of what is happening. The new data completely makes the old computer models obsolete and wrong.
|
Not true. I will consider everything. Please show me links to the new data you are talking about. I promise I will read it, maybe do some more research, and get back to you. Trust me I want a green planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
And quite frankly...that's a good thing. It means that we WON'T be underwater on the coastal cities (just like they predicted in 1970 that global warming would have the entire East and West coast underwater by the year 2000...14 years ago). It means that the planet is not being killed by humans (I know that's a hard one for our species ego...but we're a pimple on the ass of the Earth).
|
I wish you were right, but for now anyway, I will believe the scientists.