Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

or by dissolution into water and forming carbonic acid?

CO2 dissolved in water is still CO2. It is released from the water by wind and waves. But you bring up a very good point, that the world's oceans are becoming more acidic because of the burning of fossil fuels. The future of the world's oceans are not looking very pretty at this point in time because the increase in acidity is killing coral reefs around the world. The acidity is rising so rapidly that the coral can't evolve fast enough to adapt to it.

[DogtorEvil]

But isn't it true that even in photosynthesis the CO2 is fixed into the wood and then later when the wood burns or decomposes the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere?

Wrong. The CO2 combines with water to create a sugar molecule and oxygen.

[DogtorEvil]

CO2 dissolved in water is still CO2.

Wrong again.

[saltydawg]

Wrong. The CO2 combines with water to create a sugar molecule and oxygen.

Ok, but the sugar molecule combines with oxygen later during the burning or decomposing process to create CO2.

[saltydawg]

Wrong again.

Explain.

[Guisslapp]

Explain.

CO2 + H2O H2CO3

[DogtorEvil]

Explain.

H2O + C02 -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

[DogtorEvil]

But you bring up a very good point, that the world's oceans are becoming more acidic because of the burning of fossil fuels. The future of the world's oceans are not looking very pretty at this point in time because the increase in acidity is killing coral reefs around the world. The acidity is rising so rapidly that the coral can't evolve fast enough to adapt to it.

the pH of oceanic water has decreased by 0.1 in the last 100 years.

There is no proof anywhere that it is due to CO2.

[DogtorEvil]

Ok, but the sugar molecule combines with oxygen later during the burning or decomposing process to create CO2.

Yes, that's part of the carbon cycle you (incorrectly) keep referencing. Any form of carbon, when combusted in the presence of oxygen, will yield CO2 (and CO for that matter).

[randerizer]

Thanks for that long post. Just 2 brief comments. First, ice core readings are not necessary for concluding that rising atmospheric co2 levels will lead to increase average global temperatures. Second, the amount of CO2 we are dumping in the atmosphere is not a "relatively small change in the total atmospheric concentration of a relatively small contributor to the overall greenhouse effect." It's a big increase and its getting bigger. CO2 does not degrade in the environment by chemical or physical processes.

Keep an open mind and keep reading the latest science on the subject.

To clarify, if my arguments are true, whatever results will happen from global warming are an inevitable part of the carbon cycle. Ice core readings are not necessary to prove that the greenhouse effect is a real thing or that increased CO2 levels will lead to more global warming. But they are very important, at least at the present time, in showing that the CO2 that is in the atmosphere is really above the baseline levels that we would otherwise expect at this point in the carbon cycle.

"CO2 does not degrade in the environment by chemical or physical processes." - these are the kinds of blanket statements that make "experts" wrong all of the time. The statement is an attempt to simplify a problem when there are too many factors to consider. BTW, this is the same kind of simplification that the Nobel Laureate I was referring to earlier used with respect to the specific field I am in - and he was WRONG in that instance.

[DogtorEvil]

Normal climate fluctuations can take place in short time periods, like 10 to 30 years. The climate is a beasty animal and we are poking it with sticks. Don't be surprised if it bites you on your ass in the next 30 years.

When you make statements like this you break your own case.

Yes, there are normal climate fluctuations. Ice core samples prove that. They can occur over short and long periods of time.

The climate is "beasty". We are "poking it with sticks", Especially with the models that are used to predict what will occur tomorrowm next week, bext month, next year, by the end of the century. The further you get away from today, the further in error your model is.

Yes, I will be surprised if it bites me in the ass in thirty years. What I won't be surprised by is that the climate will stabilize and turn cooler, part of the natural climate cycle. However, people like you will claim that it is because there was a reduction in CO2 emissions (even though global Co2 emissions are likely to be higher thirty years from now).

Since Kyoto was signed in 1997, how many major producers have reduced their CO2 emissions (I think the answer is 1)?

Since 1997, of the major producers, what country had the smallest increase (USA?)?

What country, which is not regulated by the stricter guidleines of Kyoto, will soon pass the US in CO2 emissions? China

I'm hoping that all your "sky is falling buddies" will start dumping their beach property soon so that it will deflate the property values on the coast. I (and many others) will be more than happy to pick up those soon to be underwater properties at a mere fraction of their current values.

30 years from now, I'll be having a party on one of those (still dry) properties, laughing all the way to the bank.

[DogtorEvil]

Whatever Mr Clueless. Ive got at least a few better things to do than read your take on this subject.

Great argument there Alta. You call somebody clueless in the same line that you refuse to read anything that offers an opinion contradictory to your own.

[DogtorEvil]

Look, randerizer, the reason that we are having this argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that you just don't like the political or economic implications of the science.

The reason we are having this argument is because you (and many others) ARE neglecting the science. I promise you that if the science was there to support the theory that man is what is causing the recent increase in global temperatures, I would be vehemently arguing that we should do something.

However, if you are like most people, you are willing to accept scientific authority to a large extent as long as it doesn't conflict with strongly-held religious or political beliefs or economic self-interest. If it does, you adopt a new higher standard of having to have the scientists convince you that they are right even without any real attempt
to obtain the background to understand their evidence and arguments.

I (nor is Randerizer or Guisslapp, et. al.) are like most people. We're not sheep. We're not going to blindly follow what any supposed scientific body says (i.e., IPCC), especially something that has been as highly politicized as global warming.

[DogtorEvil]

OK, Mr. Clueless, ignore what the world's leading climate scientists are telling you. Listen to the crack-pots and scientists turned hacks. In 30 years you will be singing a different tune.

Great way of making your point there Salty. Weren't you the one chastising someone for calling names (something along the lines of saying that it is typical of right wingers to start throwing around names when they are losing an argument)?

Many of those "world leading climate scientists" you keep referencing are crack-pots and hacks. Their bread is buttered by global warming hyteria; i.e., no global warming hysteria= no grants = no job.

There are many "world leading scientists" that say that global warming is occuring, but disagree that man is the cause.

I'll be waiting for your "but the latest IPCC release" response.

[DogtorEvil]

and one more thing, if (whoever you are) that wants to red dot me, please do so, but at least have the guts to sign them. (FYI they wound up being grey dots)

If you don't like what I'm saying, good. At least hop in the thread and give Salty a little back up rather than lurking in the shadows.