A Climate Science Headline You Won't See, Part 17

[LowDown]

Ocean plants that sequester CO2 actually do better with warming and acidification.

These were studies of small sea organisms that cover themselves with hard shells. The shells these little beasties make are made of calcium carbonate. When they die the shells sink to the ocean floor and thereby act as a carbon sink.

Short term studies had shown that the shells were not formed as well by the organisms if the water is more acidic, but over this longer experiment (one year) they seemed to adapt and produced better shells.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Keep them coming bud!

 

[Threegoofs]

Ocean plants that sequester CO2 actually do better with warming and acidification.

These were studies of small sea organisms that cover themselves with hard shells. The shells these little beasties make are made of calcium carbonate. When they die the shells sink to the ocean floor and thereby act as a carbon sink.

Short term studies had shown that the shells were not formed as well by the organisms if the water is more acidic, but over this longer experiment (one year) they seemed to adapt and produced better shells.

Well, LoP personally proved that acidification won't happen with rising CO2 levels (much to the future astonishment of oceanographers when he publishes his findings).

And every other denier here states that there is no warming.


So I don't get the relevance of the article.

 

[LowDown]

Well, LoP personally proved that acidification won't happen with rising CO2 levels (much to the future astonishment of oceanographers when he publishes his findings).

And every other denier here states that there is no warming.


So I don't get the relevance of the article.

No, it's not correct that skeptics (i.e., real scientists) deny that there has been warming.

Who is LoP?

 

[KLATTU]

No, it's not correct that skeptics (i.e., real scientists) deny that there has been warming.

?

Warming and cooling depends solely on where you put the beginning and end points.

 

[Threegoofs]

Warming and cooling depends solely on where you put the beginning and end points.

To avoid this impending skeptic gimp fight/bitchslapping contest, ill modify my comments to say 'some' skeptics deny there has been any warming.

And as Klattu deftly notes, the deniers know very well how to manipulate data to show what they want to show.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...hat-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/

 

[KLATTU]

To avoid this impending skeptic gimp fight/bitchslapping contest, ill modify my comments to say 'some' skeptics deny there has been any warming.

And as Klattu deftly notes, the deniers know very well how to manipulate data to show what they want to show.

[/QUOTE] boy you said it! Warming ...n't admit it. " b..b..but 2012 was warm..."

 

[Threegoofs]

boy you said it! Warming has stopped for over a decade and the deniers just can't admit it.

" b..b..but 2012 was warm..."

I see what you did there.

I'd be lying if I said I expected better from you.

 

[LowDown]

To avoid this impending skeptic gimp fight/bitchslapping contest, ill modify my comments to say 'some' skeptics deny there has been any warming.

And as Klattu deftly notes, the deniers know very well how to manipulate data to show what they want to show.

Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming | ThinkProgress

So do the AGW pimps. Hence the hidden decline.

 

[LowDown]

boy you said it! Warming has stopped for over a decade and the deniers just can't admit it.

" b..b..but 2012 was warm..."

In some peer reviewed studies the AGW people are beginning to admit that there has been a "pause" in warming that is difficult to explain.. In fact, even people like James Hansen were talking about the pause a year or two ago and were coming up with various proposals to explain it. The AGW pimps are even beginning to ignore and deny their own scientists.

 

[Threegoofs]

In some peer reviewed studies the AGW people are beginning to admit that there has been a "pause" in warming that is difficult to explain.. In fact, even people like James Hansen were talking about the pause a year or two ago and were coming up with various proposals to explain it. The AGW pimps are even beginning to ignore and deny their own scientists.

Of course, you don't seem to comprehend that this 'pause' is trying to be understood in the context that more heat is being trapped on earth, but the increase isn't showing up in tropospheric temperature readings.

Virtually all climatologists agree the heat is going somewhere, and chances are its the ocean.

 

[Dezaad]

Ocean plants that sequester CO2 actually do better with warming and acidification.

These were studies of small sea organisms that cover themselves with hard shells. The shells these little beasties make are made of calcium carbonate. When they die the shells sink to the ocean floor and thereby act as a carbon sink.

Short term studies had shown that the shells were not formed as well by the organisms if the water is more acidic, but over this longer experiment (one year) they seemed to adapt and produced better shells.

Interesting, and yet there has been no slowdown in the increase of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. So they must not be very effective at sequestering CO2.

What is your explanation for their relevance to AGW if they don't seem to actually sequester CO2?

 

[LowDown]

Of course, you don't seem to comprehend that this 'pause' is trying to be understood in the context that more heat is being trapped on earth, but the increase isn't showing up in tropospheric temperature readings.

Virtually all climatologists agree the heat is going somewhere, and chances are its the ocean.

A more perfect example of hermeneutical reasoning would be difficult to find.

 

[LowDown]

Interesting, and yet there has been no slowdown in the increase of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. So they must not be very effective at sequestering CO2.

What is your explanation for their relevance to AGW if they don't seem to actually sequester CO2?

They act as a carbon sink. The fact that CO2 is going up may be due to outgassing from the oceans in response to temperature increases. If these beasties sequester carbon then the carbon is no longer available for exchange with the atmosphere. This sets the ocean:air equilibrium at a lower level. In other words, these bugs gobble up CO2 near the surface and their carbon rich shells sink leaving more room for CO2 in the surface waters. This would have the effect of reducing the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Anything that affects their viability would therefore possibly have an effect on atmospheric CO2.

 

[Dezaad]

They act as a carbon sink. The fact that CO2 is going up may be due to outgassing from the oceans in response to temperature increases. If these beasties sequester carbon then the carbon is no longer available for exchange with the atmosphere. This sets the ocean:air equilibrium at a lower level. In other words, these bugs gobble up CO2 near the surface and their carbon rich shells sink leaving more room for CO2 in the surface waters. This would have the effect of reducing the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Anything that affects their viability would therefore possibly have an effect on atmospheric CO2.

All of which is not an answer to my question. If I take one molecule of CO2 out of the atmosphere per year, I am acting as a Carbon Sink, but not a very effective one. There is no evidence that these bugs are being very effective at reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, the evidence indicates that the amount of carbon dioxide they are removing isn't even registering as a slowdown in the increase of atmospheric CO2. Is it that you think they will, and they just haven't been able to get going yet? How many tons of CO2 are they anticipated to be able to remove per year? What else affects their viability? Are there factors that would restrict their viability despite the more favorable climate we are providing for them?

 

[LowDown]

All of which is not an answer to my question. If I take one molecule of CO2 out of the atmosphere per year, I am acting as a Carbon Sink, but not a very effective one. There is no evidence that these bugs are being very effective at reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, the evidence indicates that the amount of carbon dioxide they are removing isn't even registering as a slowdown in the increase of atmospheric CO2. Is it that you think they will, and they just haven't been able to get going yet? How many tons of CO2 are they anticipated to be able to remove per year? What else affects their viability? Are there factors that would restrict their viability despite the more favorable climate we are providing for them?

Over time the sequestration of carbon by these organisms is incredibly large. Between 60 and 100 trillion metric tons is sequestered in the earth as limestone deposits including ocean deposits of calcium carbonate almost all of which was put there by the action of marine organisms like these beasties. Of course, it took a very long time for that deposit to accumulate. For comparison, the amount of carbon sequestered in rocks and ocean deposits is about 1,000 times more than all the carbon in earth's biomass. All the unburned fossil fuels on earth amount to about 4 trillion metric tons of carbon.

5.3 gigatons of carbon are released by fossil fuel burning each year. 100-150 gigatons is taken up by the ocean and an almost equal amount is outgassed from the ocean. Net sequestration by the ocean each year is about 2.5 gigatons, and this is mainly the action of ocean organisms. Uptake of carbon dioxide by photosynthesis is on the order of 150 gigatons per year, and this is roughly balanced by decay of plants and plant respiration. A slight tilt in the balance would negate the effects of fossil fuel burning.

So, in other words, ocean organisms take up about half of the carbon released by fossil fuel burning each year. The assumption is that the excess fossil fuel sourced CO2 is what is causing the atmospheric level of CO2 to rise, but it could very well be something affecting the natural carbon balance, meaning that stopping anthropogenic CO2 production would have no effect on the rate of increase.

The Importance of Carbon for Climate Regulation

 

[Threegoofs]

Over time the sequestration of carbon by these organisms is incredibly large. Between 60 and 100 trillion metric tons is sequestered in the earth as limestone deposits including ocean deposits of calcium carbonate almost all of which was put there by the action of marine organisms like these beasties. Of course, it took a very long time for that deposit to accumulate. For comparison, the amount of carbon sequestered in rocks and ocean deposits is about 1,000 times more than all the carbon in earth's biomass. All the unburned fossil fuels on earth amount to about 4 trillion metric tons of carbon.

5.3 gigatons of carbon are released by fossil fuel burning each year. 100-150 gigatons is taken up by the ocean and an almost equal amount is outgassed from the ocean. Net sequestration by the ocean each year is about 2.5 gigatons, and this is mainly the action of ocean organisms. Uptake of carbon dioxide by photosynthesis is on the order of 150 gigatons per year, and this is roughly balanced by decay of plants and plant respiration. A slight tilt in the balance would negate the effects of fossil fuel burning.

So, in other words, ocean organisms take up about half of the carbon released by fossil fuel burning each year. The assumption is that the excess fossil fuel sourced CO2 is what is causing the atmospheric level of CO2 to rise, but it could very well be something affecting the natural carbon balance, meaning that stopping anthropogenic CO2 production would have no effect on the rate of increase.

The Importance of Carbon for Climate Regulation

Look up "equilibrium". It should be in the first couple chapters of any Chemistry textbook.

Then get back to us.

 

[LowDown]

Look up "equilibrium". It should be in the first couple chapters of any Chemistry textbook.

Then get back to us.

Yes, I was referring to things that could affect the equilibrium. I think a reasonable person will realize that from what I wrote.

Note that fossil fuel burning is a small part of the total CO2 sources.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, I was referring to things that could affect the equilibrium. I think a reasonable person will realize that from what I wrote.

Note that fossil fuel burning is a small part of the total CO2 sources.

Again. You have heard the term.

You should attempt to understand the concept.

I think I'm done here. There are only so many chess games you can play with a pigeon....

 

[LowDown]

Again. You have heard the term.

You should attempt to understand the concept.

I think I'm done here. There are only so many chess games you can play with a pigeon....

Yes, one can flail about in desperation for only so long.

 

[flogger]

Yes, one can flail about in desperation for only so long.

Pure class.....:lamo