/sci/ - Science & Math

I've been working in that sector (Siemens, not ABB) and I know from the necessary safety precautions that the decomposition products (metal fluorides) after arcing or corona discharges in SF6 are toxic shit. Fortunately they smell so horrible that you instinctively and immediately stop breathing. So to me replacing SF6 with CO2 seems to be a very, very good idea.

>global warming
Did some queries to the climate data base today, pic shows one result. Comment:

JUST LOOK AT THAT CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 DRIVEN GLOBAL WARMING.

My current impression is that climatology has descended into a politically controlled pseudo-science, kind of a climate religion modeling answers that cannot be questioned.

>>6988574
>misleadinggraphs.com

>>6988574
Where did that data come from. Also, how does a rise in CO2 with known greenhouse gas properties not cause an overall rise in temperature?

>>6988574
>Implying you know more than an actual climatologist

>>6988781
god dammit. I'm on your side, but I cannot abide appeals to authority

>>6988787
appeals to expert knowledge in technical subjects are not appeals to authority

>>6988365
>Any ideas sci?

Plant a lot of trees.

>>6988574

My impression is that you shouldn't be using intentionally misleading graphs

>>6988830
keyword: knowledge
if you want to cite specific information, do so. But a climatologist is not knowledge

>>6988856

You forgot that CO2 goes up AFTER temperature goes up; due to ocean out-gassing (high water temperatures are less soluble to CO2).

Correlation =/= Causation

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.
Global and Planetary Change, August 30, 2012.
Conclusion: Changes in temperatures are seen to take place 9-12 months before corresponding changes in atmospheric CO2.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

>>6988908
you cant understand the information, thats the point

>>6988924
This post: >>6988592
contains no information

>>6988929
meant to link>>6988781

>>6988913
>You forgot that CO2 goes up AFTER temperature goes up; due to ocean out-gassing (high water temperatures are less soluble to CO2).

Except that the oceans are not a carbon source, but a carbon sink. The atmospheric Co2 concentration would be actually much higher if it weren't for the oceans absorbing a part of what we emit (and becoming more acidic as a result)

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

Now, temperature change actually does affect the atmospheric Co2 concentration, but the idea the recent increase in Co2 is driven by the recent increase in temperature (caused by god-knows-what) is obviously wrong.

>>6988943
exactly, there is a mechanism for explaining how CO2 raises temperatures, and evidence that shows this is actually occurring.

>>6988913
What mechanism do you propose for the increase in overall global temperature? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that it is some other mechanism and not the CO2 greenhouse gas mechanism?

>>6988913
post correlation fagggeeet

I love it.. "plant more trees" gives us more wood to burn, yay !

>>6988995
>>6988913
Planting trees will do next to nothing to help. Unless you plan on cutting down trees and storing the wood underground, then planting more trees

>>6988995

>burning
>not building skyscrapers

pleb

Isn't that funny.

>>6988574
Actually, this. I was a 'physics consultant' (kek) as an undergraduate at a climate conference in my country, where they brought together politicians, students, climate scientists, ect.

The conference was mostly about 'educating' the public. There was some interesting stuff about extreme weather, but when the studies looked questionable, and someone questioned them, they'd get shot down by some self-righteous individual for backing 'big oil's side' and buying into the 'propaganda' or 'pseudoscience'.

There's such a mess of interests, bad science and an extremely complex system at the centre of it all. It's may be probable that there's anthropogenic warming, but anyone 'certain' enough to ridicule those who suggest otherwise can go suck a dick.

>>6989100
>ridicule those who suggest otherwise

I will always ridicule people making silly arguments because they deserve to be ridiculed.

>>6989109
Of course. That's fine because you aren't ridiculing their position before they've made their argument.

>>6988943

You can not rewrite basic chemistry. CO2 solubility declines with temperature increase.

>>6988943

You're cherry picking. CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past. Without the world dying off.

>>6988955

>What mechanism do you propose for the increase in overall global temperature? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that it is some other mechanism and not the CO2 greenhouse gas mechanism?

What mechanism to you propose for CO2 to go back in time and raise the temperatures?

Or are you simply denying the data?

Glacier data: CO2 goes up 800 years AFTER temperature.

>>6988943
>Ocean acidification
Papers on it are plagued with cherry picking and fraudulent data presentation. Historic data is ignored and acidification data models that are fucked up are used to make it appear dangerous.

>>6988856

>My impression is that you shouldn't be using intentionally misleading graphs

You really should take your own advice. Its amazing how that correlation improves after the data has been "corrected."

>>6989325
>240,000 years ago, about the end of an ice age
>What are Milankovitch cycles

This is a frequent misunderstanding, leaving (and entering) and ice age is about Milankovitch cycles, what happens is that we move out of one, which courses a series of changes, which courses an increase in <span class="math">CO_{2}[/spoiler], the take away message is that, in this case it's not <span class="math">CO_{2}[/spoiler] that is causing the forcing.

>>6989320
>CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past. Without the world dying off.

>250 million years ago
>Large spike in <span class="math">CO_{2}[/spoiler]
>Also corresponds to the Permian–Triassic extinction event
>About 96% of oceanic life died off.

>>6989342

And here's the confession of the guilty, brought to you by ClimateGate.

>>6989357
>I don't like people correcting models

>>6989352
>Large spike in CO2
>Also corresponds to the Permian–Triassic extinction event
>About 96% of oceanic life died off.

Don't be silly, the CO2 increase to place over a period of millions of years. And the CO2 was much higher in the past.

Or are you using circular reasoning? Things died, therefore CO2 caused it, therefore CO2 is dangerous!

>that deadly plant food.

Yeah, 400 ppm CO2 will be the death of us all.

>>6989375
>that deadly plant food.

Nope, I'm out.

>>6989352

And this graph
>>6988913
shows that CO2 is not causing the forcing now.

>>6989357
Without some context, I can't be sure what is being said here.

>>6989375
What is carbonic acid?

>>6989405
>What is carbonic acid?
How much CO2 can be dissolved in water at a given temperature?
>>6989315
Learn to Chemistry.

>>6989374
>"Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip."

Not a model. SST stands for Sea Surface Temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

>>6989421
>>6989421
>How much CO2 can be dissolved in water at a given temperature?

plenty enough to make the ocean more acidic

You know how carbonic acid affects pH, don't you?

>>6989466

Sheesh, get your story straight.

According to AGW, higher CO2 causes higher temperatures. But higher temperatures causes LOWER CO2 solubility in ocean water.

That's why oceans OUT-GAS CO2 when it gets warmer. See, e.g.,
Enhanced CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean from a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode. Nicole S. Lovenduski1, Nicolas Gruber1,3, Scott C. Doney2 and
Ivan D. Lima2

Your AGW story is self-contradictory.
Choose ONLY ONE of the following:

1. Higher CO2 causes higher temperatures.
2. Higher CO2 causes more acidic oceans.

And get past the sloppy "science" that left out literally millions of data points.
>>6989329

DOI: 10.1029/2006GB002900

>>6989315
Yeah, except that you have to change the temperature by a lot before you get a noticeable difference.

>>6989329

It's a measurable fact, you dingus.

>>6989357

Nothing like presenting a snippet of discussion out of context to "prove" your conspiracy theory.

Here is the "fraud" happening in plain sight

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf

Real scientists have to defend their methods in the scientific literature, something you wouldn't know much about I guess.

>>6989063
Looks like the CO2 is where the trees are, not where the SUVs are..
(October-November is in the middle of southern spring)

>>6990376

You know nothing about the carbon cycle, yet you post about it anyway. You are no better than the people that Sokal and Bricmont wrote about. You are an embarrassment to this board.

>>6990256
>It's a measurable fact
pH is measureable.
We've been doing so for 100+ years.
Which is why we know ocean acidification is bullshit.

>>6990397

What you actually wanted to say is that the "true" measurements have been manipulated by the secret order of the Climatati, correct?

It seems that not one single anon has mentioned the water cycle.

Bunch of Retards.

>>6990426
Water cycle

>>6990426
Doh, missed the post about the water cycle

>>6990410
I'm saying the climatati quality controlled away 75% of the historic measurements and supplemented it with retarded computer models made to produce their desired results.

>>6990429

>mfw arguing with a genuine conspiracy theorist

>>6990440
>I don't have an argument so it's a conspiracy theory.

In any other field we'd call it scientific fraud and retract the paper, in climate science it's the only way to get published.

>>6990449
>I don't have an argument

How am I supposed to prove that Oceanography is *not* controlled by a secret NWO society from Bavaria?

>>6990452
You could compare the historic record to what the "omg we die nao" presents.

But of course you might see something that doesn't mesh well with your religious faith in AGW so please just keep on shitposting and tighten the blinders.

>>6990461

But the historic record is controlled by the Climatati, no?

>>6988365
Too few people understand that we have already passed the point of no return as far as fucking up the planets climate. All we can do now is minimize further damage and adapt to live in the hellhole we created. I appreciate your post, anon, it is good to see someone fighting the good fight.

While damage control is important, adaptation should be first priority.

The global climate is going to be changing rapidly in the next several decades, the die is cast, and the world is not prepared. Extreme weather and natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes, blizzards, drought, wild fires, and tornadoes are becoming more frequent as a result of the altered climate. Most importantly sea levels are rising and are going to continue doing so at faster and faster rates. The effects are already being felt in island nations and major cities like Venice Italy. A few extra meters of water may not sound like much, but it would result in the destruction of countless coastal cities, and the displacement of hundreds of millions of people from their homes. We must act now and construct dikes, levees, and dams to protect populated areas from the inevitable rise of the oceans before it is too late.

>>6988787
Who would you rather have diagnose your rash, a dermatologist or a podiatrist?

>>6988913
>what is a positive feedback loop

>>6989320
>permidian extinction

>>6989329
There is a line between questioning authority, and being skeptical to the point of ignorance. You have long since crossed this line

>>6990504
>The global climate is going to be changing rapidly in the next several decades
Just like how the north pole is ice free in summer. The himalayan glaciers have melted and children in the UK haven't seen snow for the last 5 years amirite?

Or do you have time enough to die before we call the bullshit this time around?

>Extreme weather
decreasing.

> sea levels are rising
at the same rate since we started measuring.

>A few extra meters of water
will take half a millennium, but of course it's countered by landrise too.

>We must act now
Adapting when needed is a perfectly valid and sensible response, we're not talking about tsunamis here so we'll have ample time to patiently build whatever infrastructure wherever needed when needed.

Unfortunately the whole warming aspect you so fervently advertise seems slow to manifest, otherwise we could start push wineyards northwards to their previous historic locations.

>>6990521
There's a line between religioid belief and scientific opinion. You were raised and indoctrinated on the religioid side and your unwavering faith and aversion to facts, debate and data shows it quite clearly.

Even with the facts right in front of your eyes you shy away. If anything you move further away from science, cementing your faith and the polaized situation where you care more about telling "them" they're wrong(with no whatsoever fact and argument, as you just did) than examining what they're saying.

False predictions: doesn't matter.
Model failure: doesn't matter.
Downward revision of previously certain data: doesn't matter.
Leaked emails where they try to sweep the truth under the rug and discuss their deceit openly: doesn't matter.

My post: doesn't matter, you've got your faith and your cosy little green tinted guilt trip and nothing in this world is going to change it.

>>6989320
I came across a more detailed version of the graph you posted. It appears (in slightly lower quality) in an article about historical carbon dioxide levels. Some excerpts:

It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth's surface.

[...]

The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly "balanced" by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world from the beginning, with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.

Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean.

Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to "the environment". There is no evidence that it causes harm.

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

>>6989482
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
The amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is determined by the partial pressure of the gas above it and by the temperature of the liquid.
Since the partial pressure of CO2 has increased from ~280 ppm to ~400 ppm that means that the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean also has to increase by a factor of 400/280= 1.428, GIVEN constant temperatures.
But temperatures are not constant, they have risen by about 1 °C, so we have to adjust that value, using the graph in >>6989315. You can see that a temperature increase of 1 °C decreases solubility of CO2 by about 5% in the 10-20 ° range. So we have to adjust your factor to about 1.35.
This a simple back-of-the-envelope claculation, but it should be clear that the increase of CO2 in the ocean by higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is only partly reduced by the resulting increased temperatures.
And that's ocean acidification.
Now, think about how absolutely sure you were that all the scientist are idiots who miss basic physical facts and how sure you were how right you were, yet you didn't have even the slightest fucking clue about the basic physics behind it yourself and missed something that should have been thought to you in highschool physics. There's a name for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>6990714
It's a meme post
You just took the bait.
>inb4 you were counter baiting

>>6990552
>There's a line between religioid belief and scientific opinion
Reddit pls go

>>6990542
>otherwise we could start push wineyards northwards to their previous historic locations.

And what historic locations would those be?

>>6990714

Well, unfortunately, you did the calculation wrong. The "constant" in Henry's law is only a constant for a constant temperature. Which is to say it is temperature dependent.

See attached. Mr. J. Griffin calculated the change in Henry's law constant over temperature for CO2. Applied to a recent temperature increase from about 1979; global temperature has gone roughly from 13 to 14 degrees Celsius. This yields an outgassing of 59 parts per million CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is why CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up AFTER temperature goes up as shown here:
>>6988913

Do you have a better explanation?

>>6991826

Attachment here.

This is the only science forum I know of where CC denialism is actually a common thing.

It's also the worst science forum I know of when it comes to any methodology or credibility.

>>6991826
Could you guys please put the chemistry set down before you hurt yourselves? The short-term CO2 variations seen here >>6988913 are caused by ENSO, it has little to do with global warming (see the comments on the paper in question).

Mr. J. Griffin is apparently one of those internet McExperts who doesn't realize that:

1. The temperature of the ocean has not increased by 1 C
2. Even if it did, his result would still not explain the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial to today's 400 ppm
3. His result has absurd historical implications (negative CO2 concentration in the atmosphere during ice age (glacial maximum))

And as others have explained before, this whole discussion is extremely silly - human carbon emissions account for more than 100 % of the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial. Ocean essentially acts as a buffer by absorbing a part of that.

That is not to say that temperature doesn't affect CO2 solubility of the ocean, but the ocean carbon cycle is very complex, it cannot be solved by via a simplistic equation devised for a glass of pure water in a lab.

>>6991993
I think it's just bunch of guys who keep coming back, /sci/ is not a large board.

>>6991826
>Well, unfortunately, you did the calculation wrong. The "constant" in Henry's law is only a constant for a constant temperature. Which is to say it is temperature dependent.
You actually didn't even read the post. Seriously. Why didn't you read it?
>GIVEN constant temperatures.
>But temperatures are not constant
That Henry's constant isn't a constant was the ENTIRE POINT of that caclulation. It's RIGHT THERE. You took the 2+ minutes to write that fucking post, why didn't you take the 30 seconds to read the one you reply to, seriously. It's so mindboggeling fucking stupid.

>This is why CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up AFTER temperature goes up as shown here:
Because there are no massive amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere form other scources in that time. The Earth get's warmer and therefore, some amount of CO2 outgasses from the ocean.
Right know, we massively increased atmospheric CO2, therefore the CO2 in Oceans has to increase accordingly.

>>6988365
>>6988574
And here I thought the SF6 switchgear at my last internship was pretty ballin.

Where I'll work will probably only care about the cost, though. I imagine it'll be hard to sell CO2 breakers unless they save even more real estate or have simple metrics to prove they're definitely safer than SF2.

>>6992939
Or if definitely cheaper. Haven't had the chance to see any prices and how they compare to SF6 breakers.

>>6992753
>You actually didn't even read the post. Seriously. Why didn't you read it?
YES I DID
>>GIVEN constant temperatures.
>>But temperatures are not constant
>That Henry's constant isn't a constant was the ENTIRE POINT of that caclulation. It's RIGHT THERE. You took the 2+ minutes to write that fucking post, why didn't you take the 30 seconds to read the one you reply to, seriously. It's so mindboggeling fucking stupid.

Not is not. You took the ratio of partial pressures to calculate the change in solubility.
Lets do the math:

p/K_h = C Here p is the partial pressure, K_h is Henry's constant and C is the concentration.

So we have

p_1/K_h = C_1 and
p_2/K_h = C_2 dividing gives:
p_1/p_2 = C_1/C_2 In YOUR OWN WORDS:
>the ocean also has to increase by a factor of 400/280= 1.428

BUT the previous calculation assumes the the "constant" K_h cancels out. In fact, IT DOES NOT CANCEL OUT, BECAUSE IT HAS CHANGED DUE TO TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
So your calculation is wrong because the actual equations are:
p_1/K_h(T_1) = C_1
p_2/K_h(T_2) = C_2

So the solubility is not just a function of the partial pressure. Trying to "correct" by a hand-waving referral to a temperature dependence proved too inaccurate; so the derivation
falls apart.

>>6992706
>The short-term CO2 variations seen here >>6988913 (You) are caused by ENSO

So you admit that warming causes CO2 outgassing?

So let's see:
1. Short-term increases in CO2 come AFTER temperature increase
>>6988913
2. Long-term increases in CO2 come AFTER temperature increase
>>6989325

Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. I'm not talking about a correlation; I'm talking about CO2 actually increasing first, then temperature.

Show Me The Data. Where Is the Graph?

>>6994183

Yes, warming causes CO2 outgassing. Now would you be so kind and respond to the whole post?

>>6994718

>2. Even if it did, his result would still not explain the rise from 280 ppm pre-industrial to today's 400 ppm
Most people would agree that not all CO2 increase is from ocean out-gassing.

>3. His result has absurd historical implications (negative CO2 concentration in the atmosphere during ice age (glacial maximum))
I don't see how you reach this conclusion. I think you're making a linear extrapolation. But the Henry's law "constant" is not linear with temperature.

>And as others have explained before, this whole discussion is extremely silly - human carbon emissions account for more than 100 % of the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial. Ocean essentially acts as a buffer by absorbing a part of that.

Not sure what you mean by "accounting for more than 100% of the increase"? You can't account for more than 100% of any outcome. More to the point you simply assert this without proof or significant evidence. I am not saying that humans have no influence on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

>That is not to say that temperature doesn't affect CO2 solubility of the ocean, but the ocean carbon cycle is very complex, it cannot be solved by via a simplistic equation devised for a glass of pure water in a lab.
Sure, its not a simple problem.

>>6994718
>Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. I'm not talking about a correlation; I'm talking about CO2 actually increasing first, then temperature.
>Show Me The Data. Where Is the Graph?

Please respond to my question

>>6996047
>Most people would agree that not all CO2 increase is from ocean out-gassing.

So where is it coming from? According to Mr. J. Griffin:
>"CO2 in the air is a RESULT of a warming earth. The amount of CO2 released into the air from the water corresponds quite well with the estimated 59 ppm rise per degree C seen globally in recent years."

As I have explained, Mr. J. Griffin seems to have no idea what he's talking about.

>I don't see how you reach this conclusion. I think you're making a linear extrapolation. But the Henry's law "constant" is not linear with temperature.

Yes, it's non-linear. The non-linearity actually makes it even somewhat worse for Mr. J. Griffin in this regard, because solubility increases with decreasing temperature.

>Not sure what you mean by "accounting for more than 100% of the increase"?

If all the human carbon emissions remained in the atmosphere, the Co2 concentration would be even higher than it is now.

Pre-industrial Co2 level ~ 280 ppm ~ 2170 GtCo2
Current Co2 level ~ 400 ppm ~ 3100 GtCo2
Human emissions since pre-industrial ~ 580 GtC ~ 2120 GtCo2
(see http://lcluc.umd.edu/Announcements/2014/essdd-7-521-2014.pdf))

>Sure, its not a simple problem.

Tell that to Mr. J. Griffin. I'd wager you could use a carbon cycle textbook yourself as well.

>>6994183
>Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up.
basic chemistry

if you increase the concentration of heat-trapping compounds in the atmosphere, you will increase the heat contained in the atmosphere

>>6997246
>>Most people would agree that not all CO2 increase is from ocean out-gassing.
>So where is it coming from? According to Mr. J. Griffin:
>>"CO2 in the air is a RESULT of a warming earth. The amount of CO2 released into the air from the water corresponds quite well with the estimated 59 ppm rise per degree C seen globally in recent years."
Probably a significant part is from the earth warming:
>>6989325

>As I have explained, Mr. J. Griffin seems to have no idea what he's talking about.
Not really, you've certainly made authoritarian assertions; largely unsubstantiated.

>>I don't see how you reach this conclusion. I think you're making a linear extrapolation. But the Henry's law "constant" is not linear with temperature.
>Yes, it's non-linear. The non-linearity actually makes it even somewhat worse for Mr. J. Griffin in this regard, because solubility increases with decreasing temperature.
The big non-linearity that you are conveniently ignoring is that Sea Water freezes at about -2 degrees Centigrade; end of solubility.

>>Not sure what you mean by "accounting for more than 100% of the increase"?
>If all the human carbon emissions remained in the atmosphere, the Co2 concentration would be even higher than it is now.
Not well phrased...

>Pre-industrial Co2 level ~ 280 ppm ~ 2170 GtCo2
>Current Co2 level ~ 400 ppm ~ 3100 GtCo2
>Human emissions since pre-industrial ~ 580 GtC ~ 2120 GtCo2
>(see http://lcluc.umd.edu/Announcements/2014/essdd-7-521-2014.pdf))
CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past:
>>6989320

>>Sure, its not a simple problem.
>Tell that to Mr. J. Griffin. I'd wager you could use a carbon cycle textbook yourself as well.
Your condescending appeal to authority doesn't change the fact that you ignore that CO2 works on a logarithmic scale; pic related - - even the IPCC admits this.

>>6997285
>>Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up.
>basic chemistry
>if you increase the concentration of heat-trapping compounds in the atmosphere, you will increase the heat contained in the atmosphere

Saying that adding CO2 adds more heat to the planet, is as simply minded a description of adding CO2 to the atmosphere as a child's explanation of gravity: "Gravity pulls things down," making the child conclude that planes are impossible.

Sure, all other things being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise temperatures. In a VERY WEAK way. CO2 has to be doubled to add a mere 1.2 degrees Centigrade to the global temperature
>>6998066

But all things are never equal. For example, for the past nearly two decades there's been no global warming, even though CO2 has gone way up.

So I repeat: Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. Provide a graph.

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>>6998066
>Probably a significant part is from the earth warming:

How significant? What are the CO2 sources and sinks? How many gigatons of carbon come from where exactly? You'll have to do better than Mr. J. Griffin.

>The big non-linearity that you are conveniently ignoring is that Sea Water freezes at about -2 degrees Centigrade; end of solubility.

So what? The last time Earth was completely frozen over was millions of years ago (if ever). Mr. J. Griffin's calculation would leave Earth without CO2 even during the Last glacial period.

>CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past:

Of course they were, and? You're supposed to explain how the Human emissions do not account for the all the recent CO2 in the atmosphere, get to it.

>Your condescending appeal to authority doesn't change the fact that you ignore that CO2 works on a logarithmic scale

That logarithmic scale shows a relationship between the CO2 concentration and radiative forcing. It has nothing to do with the sources of CO2 emissions. Stop throwing red herrings around and focus on defending the CO2 outgassinng stuff.

>>6998576

Your tone of arrogance and condescension is not becoming. More importantly, what counts are the actual, empirical results. Not the "down in the weeds" attempts to distract from the question of exactly if or what "the sky is falling" scenario is being caused by atmospheric CO2.

At multiple time scales, temperature increase comes BEFORE CO2 increase or doesn't correlate at all:
>>6998078
>>6989325
>>6988913
The sad history of many failed predictions of significant temperature increase over the past 2 decades also cast doubt on this "sky is falling" scenario. So what about the other one; the one that got this discussion going, Ocean water becoming more acidic?

See the attached picture. This contains ALL the pH data, not just the cherry picked data that begins in 1988.
Let's see, what was that "sky is falling" scenario? Oh yeah, Higher Atmospheric CO2 = More acidic (lower pH) ocean water. But what does the data say?
Most acidic: 1920, about 295 ppm CO2 NOT at 2015 and 400 ppm...
Least acidic: tie for 1910 and 1985 about 290 ppm and 370 ppm respectively.

So the ocean was most acidic IN 1920 BELOW 300 PPM CO2
And notice the nice correlation with the PDO, suggesting the the increased/decrease in acidity corresponds to ocean temperature changes; which is to say ocean outgassing (and in-gassing).

Gosh why did those C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e "Scientists" start their graphs at 1988? I just don't understand -- see NEXT for the graph.

>>7000356

The "scientific" graph with the data cherry-picked to start at 1988

>>6998576
>So I repeat: Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. Provide a graph.

>ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>>6998078

Wait, people still believe in AGW?

Good Lord.

>>7000396
Not sure what AGW is but global warning is a fact and a problem.

>>7000408
>temperatures have been flat/declining for a decade
>global warming is a fact

uh

>>7000408
anthropogenic global warming, ie global warming caused by humans

>>7000356

What happened to the point by point discussion? Are you not going to follow up on those arguments?

>See the attached picture.

What paper is this from?

>>7000975
>What happened to the point by point discussion? Are you not going to follow up on those arguments?

Again, you're trying to hide in the weeds because the actual empirical results contradict the predictions.
Yes this is what real science does: Test predictions against data.
But temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 or doesn't correlate at all at multiple time scales and situations:
>>6998078
>>6989325
>>6988913
So you refuse to answer the question:
>>6998078
>Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. Provide a graph.

And ocean acidity doesn't correlate with CO2 levels, but instead with PDO oscillations. Suggesting that it is temperature driven outgassing and ingassing which drives levels of ocean acidity.

>>See the attached picture.
>What paper is this from?
This is a graph of ocean water pH and PDO levels. The data sources are given on the graph.
>>7000356

It is unfortunate, though not unexpected that the authors cherry picked the data to create a false "the sky is fallen conclusion." Cutting off the data at 1988.
>>7000359

>>7002329
>Again, you're trying to hide in the weeds

If you refuse to defend the specific points you've made, why even make them in the first place?

>And ocean acidity doesn't correlate with CO2 levels, but instead with PDO oscillations. Suggesting that it is temperature driven outgassing and ingassing which drives levels of ocean acidity.

Temperature driven outgassing and ingassing of WHAT drives the levels of ocean acidity?

>This is a graph of ocean water pH and PDO levels. The data sources are given on the graph.

In other words, this "paper" was "published" on a blog, correct?

>>7003045
>>Again, you're trying to hide in the weeds
>If you refuse to defend the specific points you've made, why even make them in the first place?
Stop hiding in the weeds to avoid acknowledging the failed predictions of AGW.

>>And ocean acidity doesn't correlate with CO2 levels, but instead with PDO oscillations. Suggesting that it is temperature driven outgassing and ingassing which drives levels of ocean acidity.
>Temperature driven outgassing and ingassing of WHAT drives the levels of ocean acidity?
>inb4 if its CO2 then it must correspond to CO2 atmospheric concentration.
The data shows that it doesn't correlate to CO2 atmospheric concentration.


>>This is a graph of ocean water pH and PDO levels. The data sources are given on the graph.
>In other words, this "paper" was "published" on a blog, correct?
>Hurr, durr, data that doesn't come from a Michael Mann Certified for Integrity 'Scientist' is false data.
Prove the data is false. Your implicit appeal to authority is unwarranted; not to mention a sad resort for
a person in denial of their failed predictions.

What I find most disturbing about your "science" is an adamant refusal to follow the scientific method.
In science, a theory make predictions. Those predictions are tested against data. It the data disagrees with
the theory; the theory is false. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. On the other hand, in C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e
"Science," if the data disagrees with the theory, the data is denied or "corrected."
>>6989342
>>6989357


Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e. It must distinguish from normal client.
No one says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And the stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years, contradicting cooling predictions.

“It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is,...If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
- Richard Feynmann

>>7000627
what about muh polar icecaps

>>7003523
>Stop hiding in the weeds to avoid acknowledging the failed predictions of AGW.

Look, if you don't want to support your previous arguments, I'm not forcing you to. I just don't see the point of tossing up random arguments, only to dismiss them a post later.

>Prove the data is false.
>inb4 if its CO2 then it must correspond to CO2 atmospheric concentration.

Well, yes. How could it not? The CO2 must come from somewhere, right? How could there even be such large and rapid changes in the CO2 flux without seeing in the the atmosphere? Have you considered the possibility that Mr. Michael G. Wallace, just like Mr. J. Griffin, has no idea what he's talking about?

>>7003523
Go back to Reddit you homo

Any of you skeptics geniuses wanna explain to me why the fuck Venus is hotter than Mercury?

It is just the mass hysteria of our time.

Climate sensitivity and feedback mechanisms are relatively unknown.
CO2 forcings are monotonic.

The models are grossly overestimating the "problem".

>>7003886

Troll/10

>>7003681

Wow. I should say that I'm surprised, but I'm not. I just accused you of behaving in an unscientific manner by denying data if it disagreed with theory. And you just did exactly that. How (anti ?) ironic. Your insistence on the applicability of Henry's law to ocean water:
>>Prove the data is false.
>i>nb4 if its CO2 then it must correspond to CO2 atmospheric concentration.
>Well, yes. How could it not?
is unfounded. The thing is Henry's Law DOES NOT apply in this situation. Even the Wikipedia article on Henry's law says:

>It [Henry's Law] also only applies simply for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid(H2CO3) to a certain degree with water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

So instead, the analysis has to be done on a Carbonate <-> Bicarbonate solution, as other anons have pointed out. Note that Whitfield (1974) has performed this analysis and showed that a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 313 ppm to 454 ppm only changes the ocean water pH from 8.24 to 8.16. And that difference is much less than the variance in the data.

BTW Mr. Mike Wallace is a hydrologist of nearly 30 years with several peer reviewed papers. Your "kill the messenger" attitude represents an anti-science approach that permeates most of C-L-I-M-A-T-E C-H-A-N-G-E "Science." The data cherry-picking fraud that he exposed is just another example of the religious-like dogma that is AGW. Its a sad day for science.

>>7003681

Stop ignoring:
>>6998078

>But all things are never equal. For example, for the past nearly two decades there's been no global warming, even though CO2 has gone way up.
>So I repeat: Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. Provide a graph.

And provide the falsifiability criterion:
>>7003523
>What I find most disturbing about your "science" is an adamant refusal to follow the scientific method.
In science, a theory make predictions. Those predictions are tested against data. It the data disagrees with
the theory; the theory is false. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. On the other hand, in C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e "Science," if the data disagrees with the theory, the data is denied or "corrected."

>ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

You can't, can you? Which demonstrates that C-L-I-M-A-T-E C-H-A-N-G-E is a pseudo-science.

>>7006404

>Your insistence on the applicability of Henry's law to ocean water:
>The thing is Henry's Law DOES NOT apply in this situation.

But how could this be? I though you brought up Mr. J. Griffin because he figured out that all the new CO2 in the atmosphere came from the ocean via the Henry's law? You better tell him about this important finding!

>BTW Mr. Mike Wallace is a hydrologist of nearly 30 years with several peer reviewed papers.

Does he have a peer reviewed paper where he explains what caused his pH variations in the ocean and why does it not show up in the atmosphere? And how exactly does his blog support your hypothesis that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is a result of ocean outgassing?

>Stop ignoring

I will ignore every single of your attempts at distraction from your inability to support your original outgassing argument. Gish Gallop is a debate technique and doesn't work so well in writing, you see.

>>7007029
>Does he have a peer reviewed paper where he explains what caused his pH variations in the ocean and why does it not show up in the atmosphere?
Again, your insistence that theory trumps facts. Go back and reread the Feynmann quote:
>>7003523

>I will ignore every single of your attempts at distraction from your inability to support your original outgassing argument. Gish Gallop is a debate technique and doesn't work so well in writing, you see.

>Gish Gallop
>I can't answer your questions, so I'll bring up the spectre of Creationism.
Heck, why don't you go all out with the "Denier" term and its implied Nazi associations?

Again.
>Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e. It must distinguish from normal client.
>No one says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And the stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years, contradicting cooling predictions.

>Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up. I'm not talking about a correlation; I'm talking about CO2 actually increasing first, then temperature.
>Show Me The Data. Where Is the Graph?

Your inability to answer these questions says everything we need to know about the state of C-L-I-M-A-T-E C-H-A-N-G-E "Science."

>>6991993
>This is the only science forum I know of where CC denialism is actually a common thing.

Perceptual bias. You're reading it, I'm reading it, they're shitposting everywhere... therefore, it must be real important and all sorts of people, even grills, must be reading it.

No, its a tiny, insignificant ghetto in the vast internets.

>It's also the worst science forum I know of when it comes to any methodology or credibility.

I hope you didn't come here for that.

>higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is only partly reduced by the resulting increased temperatures.
>And that's ocean acidification.

Yup

>>7004298
>It is just the mass hysteria of our time.
>Climate sensitivity and feedback mechanisms are relatively unknown.
>CO2 forcings are monotonic.
>The models are grossly overestimating the "problem".

Do you ever read serious science journals??

>>7006404
>Mr. Mike Wallace is a hydrologist of nearly 30 years

Thats true.

>>7008189
Did you read the one in Nature about finding the missing heat- which moved into the deep ocean?

>>7008189

>Again, your insistence that theory trumps facts.

Which "facts" are you talking about? The "facts" of Mr. J. Griffin or the "facts" of Mr. Mike Wallace? You can't have it both ways.

>Go back and reread the Feynmann quote

Here's a Feynmann quote for you:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

>>7003916

Not a climate skeptic, just wanted to dump this here for the inevitable sub-argument:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

>>7009191

The DATA facts. As in the pH data.

Is it possible that if we are able to create anti molecules of CO2 and release it into the air ( using some sort of machine or something) the anti CO2 and, the regular CO2 would cancel each other out reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? (I know this is very far fetched, I am simply asking if its possible.)

>>7010258

But there is no data, there is a graph someone posted on a website. But do I understand it correctly that you've abandoned the CO2 outgassing hypothesis?

>>7010375

No, the gas doesn't react like that, you need to suck it down first, and it's not cheap.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal

>>7011030
>But there is no data, there is a graph someone posted on a website. But do I understand it correctly that you've abandoned the CO2 outgassing hypothesis?
I didn't say that warming water doesn't outgas CO2. In fact, the graph depicts a correlation between the PDO and ocean water pH.

Do I understand you correctly that C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e is unfalsifiable?

Stop pretending that the data behind the graph isn't sourced. The source is right on the graph.

>>7012131
>I didn't say that warming water doesn't outgas CO2. In fact, the graph depicts a correlation between the PDO and ocean water pH.

So? You've claimed that atmospheric CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature, so how does that graph help your argument?

No matter what we do, we're fucked. It's too little, too late.

>>7012742

No I didn't!!! Where is the reference to say that I said that???
I said:
>>7006404
>Henry's Law DOES NOT apply in this situation. Even the Wikipedia article on Henry's law says:
>It [Henry's Law] also only applies simply for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid(H2CO3) to a certain degree with water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

Let's look at this in terms of logic. Define:
P = "Henry's Law"
Q = "CO2 dissolved in ocean water is proportional to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Clearly:
P => Q

I asserted ~P (not P)
You are now asserting ~Q (not Q)

Your conclusion does not follow. Instead, you have made the logical error of "Denying the antecedent."

>>7014369

Let's put this logic in the context of temperature:

P = "Henry's Law generalized to include temperature"
Q = "CO2 dissolved in ocean water is proportional to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and/or inversely proportional to the temperature."

(when I say "proportional" I am including the possibility of proportional relationships that are other than linear.)

Clearly:
P => Q

I asserted ~P (not P)
You are now asserting ~Q (not Q)

Again, you have "denied the antecedent."

>>7012742

BTW, the game is over. Yeah, the game where I answer your questions but you ignore mine. That game where you use preposterous creationist allusions to avoid answering fundamental scientific questions. You know, like whether or not your belief system adheres to the scientific principal of falsifiability? Or whether or not the temporal sequence between the rise of temperature and the rise of CO2 has empirical evidence to show the appropriate causal relationship? Or is asking for specific empirical evidence that a cause precedes an effect just another creationist rhetorical trick? I can't be too careful here.

Temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 or doesn't correlate at all at multiple time scales and situations:
>>6998078
>>6989325
>>6988913
Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up? Provide a graph.

For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Can you provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e? It must distinguish from normal climate. No one says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And the stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years, contradicting cooling predictions.

>>7014637
>For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Can you provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e?

The West Side Highway will be underwater.

>>7014762

Not even wrong.

>>7014369
>>No I didn't!!! Where is the reference to say that I said that???

>>7003523
>The data shows that it doesn't correlate to CO2 atmospheric concentration.

And now you've said it again!
>Temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 or doesn't correlate at all at multiple time scales and situations:

>the game is over.

It does seem that way. You can't hold a coherent though for even one paragraph.

>>7015221
BTW, the game is over. Yeah, the game where I answer your questions but you ignore mine. That game where you use preposterous creationist allusions to avoid answering fundamental scientific questions. You know, like whether or not your belief system adheres to the scientific principal of falsifiability? Or whether or not the temporal sequence between the rise of temperature and the rise of CO2 has empirical evidence to show the appropriate causal relationship? Or is asking for specific empirical evidence that a cause precedes an effect just another creationist rhetorical trick? I can't be too careful here.

Temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 or doesn't correlate at all at multiple time scales and situations:
>>6998078
>>6989325
>>6988913
Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up? Provide a graph.

For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Can you provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e? It must distinguish from normal climate. No one says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And the stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years, contradicting cooling predictions.
>You can't hold a coherent thought for even one paragraph.

Coming from an anon who confuses correlation to temperature with correlation to partial pressure.
>>The data shows that it doesn't correlate to CO2 atmospheric concentration.
Is not the same as
>Temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 or doesn't correlate at all at multiple time scales and situations:

You are incoherent in your accusations of incoherence!.
>>7014369
And this:
>Your conclusion does not follow. Instead, you have made the logical error of "Denying the antecedent."
And the ad hominem of creationist allusions not to mention logical fallacy
>>7007029
>Gish Gallop
Can you string together an argument without using logical fallacies? No

weekend time
climate time

Lel, these threads are always the same. The same graphs, The same Posters that one can tell apart by their Syntax!!!
Always the S-A-M-E !!!

>>7015389

Then add something to the discussion.

>>7015382
>that strawman
do you actually believe that anyone who studies climate actually believes this?

I know you're trolling, but in case anyone was wondering AGW is such a danger precisely because it's happening so fast. Go look up the time scales of Milankovitch cycles or any other major climate shift and go read the UN report on AGW, see how the time scales are so different.

>>7015334
>Coming from an anon who confuses correlation to temperature with correlation to partial pressure.

Correlation of WHAT with partial pressure of WHAT?

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

>>7015608

Answer the questions.

Temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 or doesn't correlate at all at multiple time scales and situations:
>>6998078
>>6989325
>>6988913
Where exactly is the data that shows global temperatures go up AFTER CO2 goes up? Provide a graph.

For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Can you provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e? It must distinguish from normal climate. No one says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And the stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years, contradicting cooling predictions.

>>7015837

Look, all you have to do is to present evidence in support of your argument that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising because of ocean outgassing and actually try to *defend* it.

You've now spent days trying to change and obfuscate the subject. It's not working. I think it's time for you to admit that you were wrong.

>>7015921

Answer the questions. Until you stop playing the game of "You have to answer my questions, but I will ignore yours," I have nothing more to say; except to expose the unfalsifiability and intellectual dishonesty of C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e "Science."
>>7015837

>>7015950
>I have nothing more to say

Really? That's all you have to say on the topic of ocean outgassing? Why didn't you say so right away? Why did you even bring it up? We could have avoided this whole "debate".

>>7016083

Answer the questions:
>>7015837

>>7016786

What makes you think I'm here to answer your questions? I came here to debunk your argument that the atmospheric CO2 is rising because of ocean outgassing. If you have nothing more to say on the issue, then I suppose I was successful.

>>7017055
>Answer the questions:
>>>7015837 (You)

Your inability to address the falsifiability issue of C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e "Science" shows that it is a non-scientific belief system.

Your inability to provide data that shows that global temperature rising comes AFTER CO2 rising shows the intellectual dishonesty of the C-l-i-m-a-t-e C-h-a-n-g-e belief system.