|
Post by StuartG on Jun 9, 2011 15:47:29 GMT 1
It's the measured CO2 concentrations that are, well almost rubbish, [should give them some credence] and the isotopic bit is a new finding that I agree has 'rubbished' [for the moment] the 'can't tell the difference' argument, but as I have said elsewhere give it time, don't be so keen to nail Your yellow duster to the mast, there's time yet. I can tell from Your text that You're angry, go'an have a nice lie down and a cuppa. Cheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 17:26:30 GMT 1
Sorry, I don't get why you think that? As far as I know, this is ice-core data? Plus deuterium from same cores gives you the temperature link.
I'm not angry, I just get heated when people get the science wrong (which is kind of my job).
I'm actually having a bit of fun, I didn't realise that there was so much you could do with isotopic analysis, and it just makes me think that the data in support of AGW is better than I thought it probably was. Also, the way isotopes are used to analyse ocean circulation is very cute as well.
I'm puzzled as to what the supposed problem is with lack of acidification of freshwater. As I said elsewhere, freshwater the main problems (I though) are sulphur and nitrogen, rather than CO2 problems. And when it comes to water, the main interest is the sea surface waters, because that is an enormous sink for carbon, so we needed to know how much of what we produce ends up there. Whether or not that carbon spends some time in freshwater along the way isn't so critical, I guess, because it ends up in the sea after all. Given that surface ocean water and atmosphere is the major exchange (think of the surface area!), the possible increase of CO2 in freshwater seems a bit trivial................
Aha! I found one site which says:
That was in 2011. I think a student experiment to try and measure effects of increased CO2 on freshwater species.
BUT points out that CO2 different effect in freshwater, due to lack of carbonate ions. Plus there is greater variability in freshwater to start with, given all the other junk that is in it in the first place.
Anyway, if anyone knows what the supposed problem is, then I'd be interested to know.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 9, 2011 18:15:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 9, 2011 19:59:20 GMT 1
StA, "As far as I know, this is ice-core data?" Not really apparent from the post, and the query on the end justifies my reaction. To most that is not apparent and tapping on the address gives no more. Anyway, I found the piece You quoted from, marianuniversityscienceblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/carbonic-acid-not-just-for-coca-cola-anymore/ and then got interested.. Here seems to be as good a place to start from, awmn.defra.gov.uk/about/history.php and indeed they say that "Of primary concern has been the widespread acidification of lakes and streams by acid deposition, in the form of sulphur and nitrogen compounds derived primarily from fossil fuel combustion. " fair enough, and that's as far as I got before this reply. On the Mu blog they gave the reaction CO2 + H2O is in equilibrium with H2CO3 and Wiki has a bit more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#Chemical_equilibria which may well explain why the various water co's don't really bother too much. Here's the reactions... www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.htmlthat's in UK, are things much different in USA or elsewhere? Found along the way: pH calculation and other bits... www2.iq.usp.br/docente/gutz/Curtipot_.htmlFresh water mussels a pain in the pipe... www.research-horizons.cam.ac.uk/knowledgetransfer/-p-biobullets-mussel-in-on-water-mains--p-.aspxUK lakes, www.uklakes.net/links.phpCheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 21:16:29 GMT 1
Ah, I think I just thought it was because a similar graph I looked at a while back was from ice-cores. Plus what ELSE is going to give you figures going back umptten thousand years. So, I'm still mystfied as to what this supposed problem is with non-acidification of freshwater compared with salt. The 'argument' was that only bodies of water linked to regions of submarine volcanism were becoming acidified, hence volcanic origin of CO2 was a better explanation (once you added in the supposedly unseen masses of submarine volcanoes required to get the figures to balance). Okay, this is the best I could find: www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Volcanic%20Carbon%20Dioxide.pdfFrom the Abstract: Caseys misinformation spreads. This is just plain wrong. Okay, so here we have this 'new' claim, that lack of acidifcation of waters not linked to volcanic areas is a PROBLEM. And later, a full statement of the supposed 'problem': I'm not sure if this is Powell or Casey, because despite Powell listed as author, other websites quote exactly the same words but assign them to Casey. I could make some comments about the importance of not plagiarising and checking your sources and providing proper references, but hey, this is the web man, and lies and misinformation spread so much FASTER if you don't bother with all that crap! See how Caseys simple misunderstanding (or poor phrasing) has now spread, and the lie that volcanic and fossil CO2 are INDISTINGUISHABLE has spread like woldfire, even to our own M. I dunno about that weird aquarium stuff though, I can't find anything other than those same phrases repeated again and again, nothing explaining WHY we'd expect to notice it anyway, given acid rain, variability of freshwater ph in the first place........................ Off the top of my head, given an average lake, varying rainfall etc, I'd not be at all surprised if the levels of CO2 (and everything else, from sediment to pollutants in general), whanged about all over the place! Another sloppy bit of work, Powell says: Whilst omitting to mention that Segalstad also says that the remaining 4% is fossil fuel derived and that you CAN tell the two apart! It's the same error that Casey makes when he misinterprets Segalstad. You can't both say that isotopic analysis is crap, AND quote as some sort of support for your position the figures from someone who has actually used isotopic analysis to derive them. Segalstad, as far as I know, doesn't think isotopic analysis is wrong and that you can't distinguish volcanic and fossil, he just thinks everyone else who has done it has got their sums wrong. Anyway, as far as I can see, we have two documents by two separate numpties (Powell and Casey), cut and paste everywhere, and then it gets misreported on the web as if it is significant. Whereas it's just two piss-poor supposed survey articles that are as full of holes as swiss cheese after you have machine-gunned it..........................
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 10, 2011 0:03:43 GMT 1
"So, I'm still mystfied as to what this supposed problem is with non-acidification of freshwater compared with salt" So am I. You mentioned it first with Your quote from the MU website. Where You mentioned about N & S compounds seemed about right judging from the DEFRA site I found, and looking at the reversible CO2/H2O equation and the attendant remarks of the Wiki piece all points to a 'self-correcting' situation for fresh water. Any remarks about Cagney & Lacey or Powell and Casey should be directed to MM. Segalstad may be incorrect. The IAEA's isotope analysis looks convincing [so far] assuming that a lack of 14C isotope indicates 'olde' CO2 from fossil fuels. [That's how I read it] but nothing is fixed, so can change. "Weapons Radiocarbon 10. A much used tracer of ocean circulation is the 14C that is derived from atmospheric weapons tests, which increased atmospheric 14C up to nearly twice its natural level before it declined again after 1963 due to implementation of test ban treaties. Bomb and natural 14C are distinguished in the ocean by comparisons with other chemical and isotopic markers. Oceanographers have been able to use the weapons test 14C signal, which has penetrated the upper 1000 metres of the ocean, to validate surface circulation fields simulated by ocean models. General patterns between models and data are similar, with lows in equatorial and high latitude regions and highs in the subtropics. The differences evident between models and data for some regions (e.g., western boundary currents, North Pacific) call for better and finer scale models in these areas. Bomb 14C also serves as a marker of recent carbon inputs including the concurrent invasion of anthropogenic CO2, which originates mainly from combustion of fossil fuels." www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC51/GC51InfDocuments/English/gc51inf-3-att3_en.pdfThe above is fine , assuming the case in quarantine. "hat isotopic analysis is crap," not said or implied by me. Vulcanism from seamounts oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06davidson/background/edu/purpose.htmlThey do say 'Seamounts and deep-sea coral ecosystems have not been widely studied because until recently they have been inaccessible to ocean explorers...' The creatures and their 'deep-water coral ecosystems' seem to be doing OK living on a Seamount, active or otherwise. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 1:50:37 GMT 1
Ah no, I didn't mean to imply YOU thought that isotopic analysis was crap! I thought that C12/C13 was the key, since it isn't effected by bomb test C14, and age isn't really the issue, just latest origin? This submarine volcanoes (Plimer) and no acidification of fresh water is weird -- does seem to be one or two documents that then pop up all over the place, and made to sound as if were proper science. Aha! Perhaps light dawns! Carbonate ions in water effects ph, as do nitrates, sulphates etc. But carbonate ions is just water hardness (limescale!), hence depends on geology. And seems that it is carbon dioxide/carbonate/bicarbonate in fresh water that keeps ph relatively constant despite respiration. So, since hardness is variable, depending in geology, that is why you'd wouldn't expect to be able to measure any acidification in fresh water anyway -- local geology and what's in the water has more effect that atmospheric CO2 levels. Whereas in the sea, different story. Seems that ocean ph about 8.2, with 0.3 variation. Whereas in a single stream, ph can vary from below 7.5 predawn, to well above 8.0 in sunlight. Hence trying to detect an atmospheric CO2 signal in that seems impossible, given geological variation as well. I found some discussion on an australian news site that asked the same questions, and unfortunately loads of links to our discredited BSc geologist who can't do isotopic analysis. It's just annoying me not being able to find a proper explanation, because on the web this misinformation courtesy of Casey and Plimer is popping up all over. As regards submarine volcanoes, someone also pointed out that If the sea were being heated from underneath via volcanism, the circulation patterns would be different to the surface waters being heated by the sun. Obvious really. And this from Oregon state debunks the submarine volcanoes heating thing quite nicely: volcano.oregonstate.edu/deep-sea-volcanoes-and-ocean-warming-reprintAlso,pointed out elsewhere that if CO2 was coming from submarine volcanoes, THAT would have a jolly big effect on the acidity of deep water, NOT the surface waters signal that we do see.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 2:21:15 GMT 1
So are you saying there is no heating effect on ocean water from undersea vulcanism? Or does it just suit your argument to ignore it?
I thought that a heat source applied to water made the temperature rise? Are you denying that heat from the the Earth's inner molten core escaping via vulcanism "goes somewhere"? If it doesn't heat the deep water, then where does it end up, please? Life is teeming round the underwater volcanic vents presumably because it is *warm* and not just because of the mineral-rich emissions?
If this source of heat is omitted from the global balance sheet it means some OTHER source of heat is being OVERESTIMATED. What? I would suggest CO2-induced warming, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 2:38:34 GMT 1
Erik Klemetti's blog 'Eruptions' is not so hot a source for you to quote, pardon the pun, STA.
I have certainly not suggested that undersea vulcanism is *increasing*. The argument is that a realistic estimate of heat from this source is missing from the global balance sheet therefore artificially boosting the apparent proportion of warmth due to other sources, i.e anthropogenic greenhouse gases..
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 11:45:30 GMT 1
Of course not, but as I already explained, the heat flow is accounted for via the existing global average heat-flow for the earth.
Massively increased submarine volcanism of the sort that has been proposed would make the measured heat flow values for oceanic crust lok rather different. It would also effect, I presume, the current observations and models where the heat flow decreases as you move away from the spreading centres at mid-ocean ridges, and the relation between heat flow and age of the oceanic crust.
Heat flow in the oceanic crust is an essential and obvious part of plate tectonics, hence it has been considerably studies and measured.
To make a more general point - this whole Casey and Plimer submarine volcanoes stuff. Okay, if you want to try and explain atmospheric CO2 levels without blaming it om fossil fuels, you don't just have to alter the current estimates a little, but by a lot. Megatonnes versus gigatonnes, remember? Okay, so where do you stick the 'extra' volcanoes? Under the sea.
Excepty there is then a great big problem -- those suggesting this fail to develop this hypothesis. So, IF there were all these extra volcanoes belching out CO2 (plus associated heat), then they fail to ask the very obvious questions:
1) how would all this submarine CO2 emission effect the distirbution of CO2 in the ocean? Would this match what we actually see.
2) Second point about how this would effect measured heat flow for oceanic crust, and the thermal profile of the oceans.
Does it suit your supposed argument to ignore these questions? Of course it does, because the data just doesn't fit this new supposed hypothesis! Leaving aside the fact that due to a gross misunderstanding, the hypothesis doesn't fit the observed isotopic analysis, since Casey has managed to convince himself (by misunderstanding Segalstad, another sceptic) that volcanic and fossil CO2 are indistinguishable!
The point seems to be that it is mainly Casey who is making this incorrect claim about CO2 isotopic analysis, but it is being pasted and repasted all over the skeptic websites. No one seems to CARE that it is just plain wrong, the same mistake is repeated and repeated, with sloppy wording which tends to imply that what is being reported here is a proper STUDY by a proper geology researcher.
Don't you think this MATTERS? If it is a mistake, don't you think someone should point it out, and retract the article? Except it just keeps spreading and spreading, but it's all wrong, right from the start.
Not just dead in the water, but dead, decomposing, and settling to the bottom to be eaten by hagfish...............
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 11:55:19 GMT 1
This has NOT been proposed and has been explicitly denied by me several times. It is all in your mind, STA - the famous straw man you are alwys imputing to the arguments of others.
What is proposed (by me, anyway) it that current global ESTIMATES of CO2 emissions and fluxes are wrong and understate the contribution both from terrestrial as well as undersea volcanic activity plus all the other CO2 releases from the earth's interior.
To that you can add gross underestimate of CO2 emissions from soil, too.
All this means that ESTIMATED emissions from fossil fuels as a proportion (geddit?) of the total are too high. This would mean that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is severely undermined.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 12:28:58 GMT 1
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum Louise quotes the abstract of some research in full above I know Louise sets great store by wiki's opinions on these matters so perhaps she would be interestd to know that wiki suggests that during the PETM There is other evidence to suggest that warming predated the carbon13 excursion by some 3,000 years.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_MaximumAnother example of data being in dispute. Par for the course, isn't it, Louise? Another dog and tail error?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jun 10, 2011 12:33:11 GMT 1
Yet again you are confusing the overall CO2 cycle and the recent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 from vulcanism, soils etc is part of the overall CO2 cycle and there is no evidence that emissions from these sources have increased recently. Therefore they cannot explain the increased CO2.
The one source of CO2 that we know has changed are anthropogenic emissions. The size of these emissions is consistent with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as the oft-mentioned change in isotopic proportions of CO2.
If you were coming to this with no preconceptions, do you really think that it would be rational to conclude that humans aren't the principal source of extra CO2 in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 12:44:45 GMT 1
Another one who doesn't understand the implications of proportions as compared to absolute numbers. Sad! What's she doing on a science board?
Here it is again. If one source is underestimated it means (ceteris paribus) that another is overestimated. That OTHER source is anthropgenic CO2 and the relevance is that its effect, relative to natural sources, is diminished.
A relative of the numptie who didn't understand the importance of the difference between mean and median ages, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 12:54:46 GMT 1
It HAS been proposed, just not by you.
I'm not totally sure WHAT you're proposing, to be totally frank. And I don't think you are either. So, I was looking at the Plimer/Casey line on the web. Dearie me, I've got better things to do that try and keep track of your continually moving goalposts!
Okay, but then if you accept warming data, means volcanic CO2 (or something) has magically managed to increase in line with industrialisation.............
Okay, so as well as doubting CO2 emission and flux estimates (a lot of which is geologists who didn't have much interest in climate, that wasn't their bag after all!), then you have to doubt temperature measurements.
Then, given ice-core data, you then have to doubt isotopic analysis and fraction of fossil CO2 in the atmopshere (Plimer apparentlyn just totally disbelieves isotopic stuff en masse).
The things you are required to doubt or not believe just keeps adding up!
How DO you marry this mis-estimated volcanic CO2 with the clear signal of the percentage that is fossil fuel derived, given that I have already shown that Casey didn't understand Segalstad for starters, and his claim of indistinguishability is total crap...............
Okay, so like Alice, how many increasingly unlikely things are we being asked to believe? That the geologists are a bunch of numpties, and couldn't get heat flow or volcanism measurements right. That geochemists are a bunch of numpties, and can't do isotopic chemistry worth a damn. That oceanographers are a bunch of numpties, and couldn't figure out that there was a whole load of CO2 emerging from the ocean floor, rather than being dissolved at the surface, and that they didn't NOTICE that these two different scenarios would give a rather different prediction as to how CO2 was distributed according to depth.That the same oceanographers hadn't noticed the weird convection currents caused by all that undersea volcanism required to warm the planet up -- or that we keep disbelieving the temperature measurements and the isotopic link in ice-cores between CO2 and deuterium.........................
And then we are asked to BELIEVE that a BSc geologist, despite not being able to read others papers correctly (Casey), and a lone Australian geologist, have somehow got it all RIGHT, and these undersea volcanoes and mistakes in isotopic analysis are going to blow the whole climatologists AGW scenario out of the water, like some giant submarine lava bomb.....................................
PS: Quote I managed to find ABOUT Plimer:
|
|