Biut that is a potential source of atmospheric CO2 if the deeper water is rich in CO2. Stiill requires an explanation of why now. The rise in CO2 looks like this:
and the explanation of the rise has to explain that curve.
Posted on 01/04/2020 9:52:32 AM PST by yesthatjallen
You said: “Yes it takes a tremendous amount of energy to warm the ocean 1C.... That amount of energy would take 3.5 years.”
I said “And let’s not forget, as you mentioned, it would take more than 8C temp rise to release the amount of CO2 to = the increase we’ve seen in the past century IF that were the mechanism AND source for the the rise, “
Lemme add this, That if we needed 8C and not just that 1C rise in temps in the ocean, that really would wipe out life on earth and in the oceans because of the massive amount of energy needed to raise it that much- of course we know that didn’t happen, so again, there must be another process by which oceanic CO2 gets into the atmosphere without the need for catastrophic heating, and there’s no reason to suggest that because there wasn’t such warming that therefore oceanic CO2 can’t possibly be the source of the rise of CO2 the last century
ok- enough brainwork for the day- global cooling is making my mind numb
However I have seen measurements of reductions in cloud cover. So I believe part of the ocean warming observed in the last few decades comes from that. But I do not believe that ocean warming had any more than a trivial effect on atmospheric CO2 over that time period.
Biut that is a potential source of atmospheric CO2 if the deeper water is rich in CO2. Stiill requires an explanation of why now. The rise in CO2 looks like this:
and the explanation of the rise has to explain that curve.
MORE FAKE CLIMATE NEWS!
It has already been proven that these liberals climate Nazis use bogus numbers to state their claims.
Sprouts?
In the US it was cold last year. very cold.
It depends on what are replacing the forest with. Row crops. Pastures.
And with the increase in carbon dioxide in the water, invertebrates will draw it out of the seawater faster to form their shells. Partial pressure or something like that.
I hear it was a lot warmer in Baghdad yesterday, especially by the airport.
Of course, the libs are *already* blaming it on President Trump.
[[But I do not believe that ocean warming had any more than a trivial effect on atmospheric CO2 over that time period.]]
I agree actually- I believe it was flushing that caused the uptick, flushing of the oceans, and other natural causes- Yes, we do contribute a good deal however, as mentioned many times, there is so little CO2 in atmosphere that it can’t possibly be causing global climate change- Try to visualize 0.00136% of the atmosphere- how much would that entail? About the size of NJ? Such a small amount can’t possibly be capturing enough heat to warm a globe-
[[the whole ocean cannot turn over.]]
That’s why i said the two processes were similar, but not exactly alike- The flushing however can drive deep ocean water to the surface- think of it like land masses sliding UNDER another land mass- it drives the mass it slides under high- same kind of action with the flushing described i n the article
[[Biut that is a potential source of atmospheric CO2 if the deeper water is rich in CO2. Still requires an explanation of why now.]]
It’s not just now- it happened in the past too- I believe the article spoke about that- (I just skimmed it- had read it before)CO2 levels were over 1000 ppm in the past (and oceans and land animals, and plants, and insects etc didn’t go extinct, didn’t burn and boil to death-
obviously, the massive rise in CO2 in the past was all natural- purely natural- so we’re talking about a massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere from somewhere- so if it wasn’t hot enough to cause such a rise (which the temp would have had to have been way too hot to sustain life), then there had to be a massive source and strong process to produce such large quantities of CO2 - that’s where the flushing hypothesis comes in and makes sense- (Certainly volcanoes weren’t entirely responsible for that huge increase in CO2)
Thanks, I didn’t know that- I’ll have to look that up- If true, massive amounts of CO2 leaving the oceans would likely affect the shells of these invertebrates-, more CO2- more dense protective shells, larger populations possibly- - very interesting-
The bottom line is there is no rise in CO2 in the Holocene other than the one you mentioned earlier of about 80 ppm which came from the roughly 8C of global warming at the beginning of the Holocene. Then all of a sudden, the cores show a rise in CO2. This one is from Antarctica:
from this website: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
When I say why now, I mean what is the explanation of that curve. That curve also matches pretty well with the Mauna Loa (and global) curves I posted earler.
They do. But the aragonite and other calcites need to be supersaturated in order for that happen. The calcites can form from dissolving corals and other calcium sources. Then the new corals form from that. Supersaturation is not guaranteed away from low latitudes.
Shells are made from calcium, not carbon.
Yep - and they don’t seem to be aware that there’s lots of places where it wasn’t near being the hottest on record or even close.
Recent, past, doesn’t matter- the trend is that there has always been massive upticks in CO2 from natural sources, natural processes- whether it took a break or not, it doesn’t matter- the fact is, the massive uptick in CO2 came from somewhere, some process, that wasn’t due to man- When a scientists states that the recent century’s uptick must be due to man, he or she isn’t being scientific- that person ignores the fact that massive upticks have happened before- and were purely and entirely natural, and so that fact can’t be ruled out as a very strong possibility for recent uptick
It also must be pointed out that despite growing CO2 production by man, temperatures are actually declining from the high of 2016, showing once again, that rising CO2 does not cause climate change- infact- there was a nearly 20 year hiatus where there was zero warming, (and even slight cooling) despite rising CO2 production by man-
to get around that inconvenient truth- the liars and scam artists at NASA claimed that a ‘satellite had moved out of position’ somehow, and therefore the readings for that satellite were not valid’, and what did they do? Yup- They pulled new numbers out of their butts and claimed “There=- you see? There really was warming”
With dishonesty like that- how can anyone take anything they say on the climate or the figures they use and think it credible? They have an agenda, and have been caught many times now blatantly lying and falsifying evidence to support their agenda and to deceive the public-
We know for a fact that something purely natural causes massive upticks in CO2 periodically- To suggest that the recent uptick must be man made, and hiding the fact that massive upticks have happened in the past that were entirely natural in origin, is dishonest on their part-
The dishonesty surrounding the climate change scam reminds me of the dishonesty of evolutionists who claimed prokaryote evolved into eukoroytes- Biology books cited it as fact for many years knowing full well it was nothing more than symbiotic relationship- They later, after massive pressure to stop the lies, removed it as an example of macro-evolution, but they fought tooth and nail to keep the obvious blatant lie in the school books- Climate change agendists are doing the same
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.