|
herfacechair -> RE: The ice is melting on Mars (10/16/2007 11:28:57 PM)
|
Not only did you prove your statement about “being bored” with this, wrong, but you’ve introduced more red herrings into this argument to shift this away from the main topic. Not only am I going to continue to prove you wrong, but I’m also going to do so with the view that we’re arguing about whether humans are causing global warming or not.
If you want to talk about other items, start a new thread and invite like minded people to discuss those topics with you.
I’m here to argue about whether we’re “causing” global warming or not.
DomKen: You're not reading for comprehension but I'll try and correct you once again.
WRONG. I fully understand what you’re getting at, and you’re seriously off topic, or simply giving a BS argument.
You’ve yet to correct me in this debate, and I doubt that you’ll “correct” me in the future. You’ve didn’t “correct” me any more than the people I’ve debated before, who argued the same thing, “corrected” me.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again. You’ve FAILED to back your argument with FACTS.
The reality is that I’m constantly correcting you in this debate.
Would it kill you to read my posts with the intentions of understanding what I’m saying before you take a feeble swipe at my reading comprehension abilities?
Don’t mistake my not agreeing with your posts, and subsequently proving you wrong, as my “not” understanding what you’re saying.
DomKen: I'll begin with the whole deep water sequestering of CO2. Yes, it does happen but how much and for how long is not well understood.
This statement is a double edge sword for you. If you don’t understand “how much, and how long”, then you don’t have a leg to stand on when talking about what capacities any of our oceans have, and whether they’re reaching capacity or not.
However, the fact of the matter is that it’s held enough CO2 to release up to 10 times as much CO2 as we have right now into the atmosphere, without human help.
DomKen: However we do know some things about the deep oceans that indicate it is likely to be minor and probably at or near capacity at all times.
Negative on the “minor” bit. Our oceans are giant carbon sinks, and they also emit allot more CO2 into the atmosphere than we do. They’ve emitted a lot longer than we’ve been emitting our puny, percentage amount of human caused CO2 emissions. That’s in comparison to the amount being emitted today, that’s compared to how much we’ve emitted throughout our history compared to how much nature has emitted.
As far as it’s being near or at capacity at all times. That’s a big negative. Our scientists have shown that our oceans are constantly absorbing and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Those 1,000,000 parts per million CO2 has to have gone somewhere. Even if you look at 4,000 parts per million CO2, they have to go somewhere.
Now, we’re just approaching 400 parts per million, and we’re humming on a cycle that we’ve been on for millions of years.
IF the oceans are “reaching” capacity, that’s a BIG if, it’s because of natural causes, NOT because of “man made” global warming.
However, our oceans are showing signs of doing what they’ve been doing for millions of years.
DomKen: Deep water is mostly cold and as I've already pointed out cold water cannot retain as much gas in solution as warmer water.
Even if that were the case, ocean circulation brings that water to the top, where its CO2 is casted off into the atmosphere. Again, that’s been happening for millions of years, without our help.
DomKen: Although this is mitigated somewhat by increasing pressure helping to keep some of the CO2 in solution it is not perfect and as water currents take water down into the deep it loses much of its gases in solution.
Fact of the matter that CO2 is brought down to the ocean bottom, PERIOD. Then it’s brought back up over a period of years.
This fact is even recognized by papers that go out of their way to try to “prove” that humans are “causing” the ocean’s increased CO2 levels. Even saw one paper that argued about how one of their computer models “showed” how our CO2 went to the ocean bottom.
Complete bunk, but it recognized one key fact, that CO2 made it to the ocean’s bottom.
Again, this process took place over a long period of time, without our help.
DomKen: Therefore with some animal life existing at even the greateast depths adding CO2 and the very deepest places being associated with ocean floor spreading and black smokers which emit some CO2 from both biologic and geologic sources it is doubtful how much more can enter solution and remain sequestered long term.
Again, we’re only approaching 400 parts per million CO2. We used to have allot more than that in the atmosphere.
Within a 500 million year period, we had more than 4,000 parts per million, having declined from 7,000 parts per million CO2 in our atmosphere. However, if you look at a graph of how much CO2 we’ve had in our atmosphere from 590 million years ago to the 20th century, you’ll see a decline trend.
Our CO2, with the exception of a short period when it was roughly at the same levels as they are now, has been a downward trend. It’s been that way for millions of years.
CO2 did go up, right after that, but it went back down, never reaching the levels it used to have before.
Something that wouldn’t happen if our oceans we’re “reaching capacity” to absorb CO2.
This was done without our help, meaning, CO2 reached over 1,000 parts per million long before we introduced industrialization.
DomKen: Which since equatorial waters are the points where these circulation currents reach the surface and those waters do emit CO2 into the atmosphere it is unlikely that massive additional quantities of CO2 can be sequestered in this system.
Again, the carbon cycle shows CO2 going through CYCLES. First it shows up in one medium, then it enters another medium, then it ends up back in the original medium.
For example, I linked to a diagram that showed the oceans, lands, and atmosphere serving as “way stations” for CO2 to travel through.
For your argument to hold, we wouldn’t have these cycles, as you assume that it’s being created somewhere, when it’s actually going from one area to another. Your argument makes it sound like we’re creating CO2 from “nowhere”, and adding it.
Like, presto, **wave the wand**, and there’s the CO2. Never mind that this CO2, or its elements, were there all along.
But even as you admitted in that statement, the ocean emitted CO2. That left a “vacuum” that’s filled by CO2 coming back into the ocean. That CO2, that entered the ocean, left a “vacuum” in the atmosphere, which was filled by CO2 coming from the ocean.
The same thing could be said with CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the land/trees.
It’s a give and take. Even CO2 resulting from human industrial and urban activity wasn’t created from “thin air”. Something that existed, or its elements, were released BACK into the environment.
Meaning, the oceans are going to have capacity to absorb CO2, just as it has over millions of years.
And the 400 parts per million that we’re approaching largely due to nature? A joke compared to what it’s done before.
DomKen: Phytoplankton are amongst the oldest aerobic organisms in existence. Precursors that pursued the same sort of metabolism and lifestyle such as Blue green algae is one of the absolute most primitive aerobic organisms around and organisms very much like modern blue green algae are probably what converted the atmosphere to roughly what we breathe today. But eventually phytoplankton evolved and almost completely replaced cyanobacteria as the primary photosynthesizers.
This doesn’t dismiss the fact that there’s something else, besides phytoplankton, that’s removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sucking them into the ocean.
And CO2 concentrations started declining before phytoplankton came into existence.
The amount of phytoplankton that we DO have in our oceans seem to be doing no different in performance than their predecessors, considering that our oceans are doing what they’ve been doing for millions of years with regards to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and cycling it back into the atmosphere.
Your statement has nothing to do with the question of whether humans are causing global warming or not.
DomKen: Why does not having things to eat the phytoplankton make for less consumption of CO2 by phytoplankton? Because growing successfully reproducing organisms have more active metabolisms than overcrowded fully grown organisms. Without a lot of organisms eating the phytoplankton growth and reproduction slow and we reach a point where simple replacement is all that is possible and that situation will not be consuming as much CO2 as a truly healthy ecosystem.
That was a rhetorical question, not meant to be answered, but to point out a weakness in your last argument. However, in your response to that rhetorical question, you exposed another weakness.
There was a point in time when we DIDN’T have plankton eating animals like the Blue Whale and the Whale Shark. Something else ate those plankton.
That’s right, there are other plankton that eat those plankton. Again, not advocating that we kill off every animal in the ocean, but even if they were taken out of the equation, other plankton would eat phytoplankton.
Causing them to reproduce, and giving your “best case” scenario above.
Again, our oceans have done this for millions of years, and they took CO2 in and cycled it back into the atmosphere, without our help.
Even at times when CO2 PPM was four digits.
DomKen: Check with an actual marine biologist if you don't believe me.
Your explanation didn’t bolster your insinuation that human’s are contributing to global warming. So, I don’t need to check with a marine biologist.
I’ll “check” with an actual marine biologist as soon as you take the global warming challenge and win the $129,000.00 that they’re offering to anybody that could prove that humans are causing global warming.
However, no matter how you try to spin the phytoplankton angle, you still don’t prove your point about the ocean’s capacity, from its biological aspect, reaching its, the ocean's, limits. Nor have you proven that we’re “responsible” for causing the ocean to “reach capacity”.
DomKen: Also there was never a time when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 1,000,000 ppm, IOW 100% CO2.
I disagree, I read from a couple of sources that it used to be at 1,000,000 parts per million. I’ve been trying to find an online equivalent to match those sources.
Even if it “wasn’t” at 1,000,000 parts per million, the fact remains that we had far more CO2 levels in the atmosphere before than we have today. It happened without human intervention, and the world did fine during those times.
The catastrophic global warming that global warming theory alarmists would like for us to believe still falls flat on its face.
DomKen: The primitive pre life Earth's atmosphere was a mix of a lot of gases including CO2 but also H2O, methane(CH4) and ammonia(NH3). Before that, while the crusr was still molten, the atmosphere appears to have been almost entirely H and He.
This has nothing to do with the discussion about whether humans are causing global warming or not.
What does this have to do with the fact that our CO2 levels have declined for most of 500 million years, with a short period where they rose, then declined again?
Again, that’s a rhetorical question, not meant to be answered by you, but to show your argument’s weakness, or relationship to the discussion. Meaning, you’re introducing another red herring into the argument.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that our atmosphere had far more CO2 in it than it does today.
Global Warming, including the current one, is a natural cycle.
DomKen: As to the whole global warming is good for plants arument, it appears you missed the 7-25-07 Nature article by Cox where it was shown that surface ozone, another byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, was detrimental to plant growth and may more than completely offest any improvement in plant growth from higher concentrations of CO2. Send any critiques to Cox et al and I'll keep an eye out for their retraction
Would it kill you to read what I post with the intentions of understanding what I’m saying? Again, what I said:
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
quote:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
These are 19,000 scientists who are well versed on this topic, who’re arguing that more CO2 wouldn’t be a bad thing. History proves them right:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4D7153AF934A35756C0A966958260
quote:
ORIGINAL: Research Physicist, Dept. of Agriculture, April 24, 1990
First, more CARBON DIOXIDE in the air increases the productivity of nearly all plants. It also reduces the rate at which water is lost to the atmosphere through individual plant leaves, greatly increasing the efficiency with which plants use water in producing organic matter. Plants of the future will be able to grow in areas that have been too dry for them.
What he says at the end:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Research Physicist, Dept. of Agriculture, April 24, 1990
that's why botanists and other plant scientists refer to the rising carbon dioxide content of earth's atmosphere as atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE enrichment and aerial CARBON DIOXIDE fertilization. It's one of the best things that could happen to the planet.
Third, the oceans consist of more than the polar oceans, and if these regions “reach capacity,” other parts of the ocean would pick up.
Fourth, we’ve had far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, up to 1,000,000 parts per million from when this planet began.
We’ve got a long way to go before the Ocean reaches CO2 absorbing capacity limits.
WHERE in MY post, quoted above, Do I say GLOBAL WARMING?
Now THAT was meant to be answered!
However, I quoted a statement, signed by over 19,000 scientists, that stated something to the effect of: “human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses.”
Your statement implies that ozone is man made.
You’re wrong, Nature also produces it, and it has the same effects.
Ozone forms naturally where ultraviolet rays interact with oxygen. Some of that ozone falls to the surface, and causes negative affects on plants. It did this prior to industrialization as well.
Most human created ozone is in the urban areas, and areas we operate in, witch is a small percentage of the planet’s total surface area compared to areas we don’t operate in.
Now, let’s look at the numbers.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
As a green house gas, it forms the miscellaneous “other” category, which is the SMALLEST category.
Out of this “other” category, we contribute .047%. How does that stack up to CO2, both natural (the majority) and man made (minority)?
(rhetorical question, not meant to be answered by you, like the bold red one above that I’ve designated for you to answer.)
If you take water vapor out of the picture, CO2 would form the majority with 99.438% leaving miscellaneous gases, which includes ozone, at .007% of the remaining gases.
Mathematically speaking, CO2 would have more of an impact on our vegetation than man made ozone, which constitutes one of the “misc” gases.
The article you tout falls along the anthropogenic global warming side of the argument.
However, I’ll counter that with this:
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/392
quote:
Two studies appearing in the July issue of Global Change Biology have concluded that increasing CO2 levels will have negative effects on insects, but positive effects for plants. One report by Peter Stiling and colleagues found that, "More herbivores die of host plant-induced death in elevated CO2 than in ambient CO2" and these plant-eating insects are more likely to be attacked because they have to feed for longer periods of time to get the nutrients needed.
And this:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/northeast/ne-edu-3.htm
quote:
For example, warmer temperatures are likely to prolong the growing season, and the increased levels of carbon dioxide are likely to enhance plant growth and water use efficiency for many crops.
Apparently, this is still the case, as 19,000 scientists recently signed a petition attesting to that fact.
DomKen: but otherwise don't bore me with your bs on the subject.
First, don’t mistake facts for “BS”.
Second, if the facts that I’m using to fact check your responses, (you mistake these facts as “BS”), bothers you, RESIST the urge to read - and respond to - my posts.
Until then, as long as you’re going to persist in trying to baffle me with BS, I’m going to constantly reply by fact checking your responses.
|
|
|
|
