Recent Comments

Prev  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  Next

Comments 90451 to 90500:

90451. Chris Colose at 04:13 AM on 1 April 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
       Another important point in the review article (also discussed in Hansen's Target CO2 paper) is that the CO2 inventory in the atmosphere is very small when compared to the Earth sources and sinks, so increased removal of CO2 with uncompensated output by volcanism after a Himalayan uplift would draw levels down to zero in a million years or so. This means a counterbalancing process is necessary, largely provided by a deceleration globally of weathering in regions un-impacted by the mountains due to temperature, which would help control the drawdown of CO2 in the Cenozoic.
90452. chrisd3 at 04:05 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       @Michael Sweet #18:

       Berkely Physicist Richard Muller, who has been hired to disparage the surface temperature record.

       That may be a problem for Dr Muller. Apparently his own forthcoming temperature study (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, or BEST) is going to say that the reconstructions by NOAA, NASA, etc., are right on the money.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Indeed. It is already a problem, for several parties:
90453. Chris Colose at 03:52 AM on 1 April 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
       Hi Bart, This review article back in 2000 is a good start http://www.essc.psu.edu/~brantley/publications/kump.pdf Since then, there's been a number of field studies (e.g., Dessert et al., 2001; Oliva et al., 2003; Gislason et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2010) that show weathering rates can go up with temperature and runoff, however there's also dependence on topographical factors, rock exposure and soil overlying that rock, etc which make for complications. There's also been debate when it comes to interpreting Strontium isotopes or other ways of diagnosing weathering rates in the past, but in general I don't sense much disagreement that this serves as an important negative feedback over sufficiently long timescales. I mentioned the Zeebe and Caldeira paper (see also David Archer's summary of that paper) simply because it was useful in testing an elusive (and largely theoretical) mechanism over the time-frame where ice cores exist.
90454. johnd at 03:49 AM on 1 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Ken Lambert at 00:45 AM, with the colouring on the graph representing W/m2, the Latitude scale being evenly divided does not acknowledge the effect of decreasing area per degree of latitude change and thus allow that to be visually appreciated. In the same way, a map of the world without some form of equal area projection would provide a distorted impression of the real world.
90455. Gilles at 03:38 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Nicolas Sarkozy, Président de la République Française (in French) http://www.rue89.com/2009/09/24/sarkozy-se-plante-encore-sur-le-trou-dans-la-couche-dozone?page=4#comment-1065723 "le monde va à sa perte si on continue à émettre du carbone qui crée un trou dans la couche d'ozone et qui brise les équilibres de la planète, ça c'est un constat" "The world goes to its destruction if we keep emitting carbon that creates a hole in the ozone layer and breaks all the planet equilibria, this is a fact"
       Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for bringing this to our attention; you've just given us a great idea for a new post: Politicians-who-get-it-right. Understandably, a short post right now.
90456. Bob Lacatena at 03:27 AM on 1 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       I'm unsure why Ken is so focused on the energy that goes into melting. That energy is simply released again when the ice freezes, so it's a zero sum game (and it's inconsequentially small, to boot). But as I said earlier, and as adelady just reiterated, what matters is not the energy that goes into melting ice, but rather the energy that goes into the ocean after the ice has melted (and which otherwise would have been reflected back into space). This is the problem with melting Arctic ice, that after it has melted, it is further warming the planet by changing the albedo in a part of the world that receives 24 hours of continuous sunlight at a fairly direct angle. That the ice refreezes when the days are instead 24 hours long is irrelevant. When the ice melts and the sun is up, the Earth warms. When the ice melts that much sooner in the spring, then the Earth warms for that much longer. Which then helps to melt the ice even sooner the following year if the planet is unable to shed the extra heat by then.
90457. Nicholas Berini at 03:07 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       I think you've really hit something with the format here. I think it would apply perfectly to: -climate scientists -news publications -climate bloggers -none of the above (though monkton already has his own page :) Wish I had more free time to contribute - vacation is just around the corner!
90458. pbjamm at 02:51 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       SkS should adopt a slogan similar to The Straight Dope. "Fighting Ignorance Since 1973. (It's taking longer than we thought)" Keep fighting the good fight.
90459. Paul D at 02:50 AM on 1 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Sean, how do you equate energy abundance with protection of the biosphere etc?? Energy enables humans to do more, which equates to using more resources. It may cut carbon emissions but I don't see how it would protect the biosphere in general. I don't think my footprint on the world would be improved by having 5 low carbon cars and abundant cheap low carbon energy to power them.
90460. lord_sidcup at 02:40 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Here is one from the UK - Labour MP Graham Stringer: Climate jiggery-pokery The whole article is packed with conspiracy theory, smears and innuendo, but the low-point is probably the assertion: "We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science"
90461. michael sweet at 02:05 AM on 1 April 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       H peirce I think your problem here is that in pure water only 1% of carbonic acid releases H+. This forms a solution about pH 5. The Ocean is about pH 8.2 so most of the new carbonic acid immediately dissociates an H+ ion. The dissociation is proportional to the pH (keeping in mind pH is a log function so 5-> 8 is 1000 times) and the Ocean is basic. Skeptics need to understand the background before they try to explain chemistry to other people.
90462. ejo60 at 01:58 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       @michael sweet : More on Miller in my blog link I will add new information here because I saw various tweets relating to Miller. If you watch his lecture then you see he violates nearly every rule in the arguments database in an eloquent way.
90463. michael sweet at 01:44 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       The Koch's have hired a new physicist who is willing to say the climate problem does not exist. The Los Angeles Times had a story today about Berkely Physicist Richard Muller, who has been hired to disparage the surface temperature record. He will testify in congress next week, even though he has not yet published anything on climate science. Among his other claims is that "Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice." Apparently he has not read this article Record Polar bear swim where the cub drowned as the mother searched for food. It is certainly easier to find an expert when they do not have to publish a single paper or read the background information! Does he count as a scientist or a politician?
90464. adelady at 00:59 AM on 1 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Ken Which is sort of the other side of the coin I offered. With a huge caveat. The amount of heat "absorbed" in the Arctic whether tiny or not has been enough to wreck the ice, and it won't be long before there are much longer periods with much larger areas of open water. Wherein lies two problems. Firstly the heat (however tiny or large) which was formerly directed into melting ice that was many metres thick will no longer be absorbed that way, because the ice isn't there any more. It will be freer to circulate in oceans and atmosphere. Secondly, the Arctic is exposed to more sun than the tropics during summer because of the day length. So more and more open water with much lower albedo than ice or snow is exposed for longer and longer periods to radiation from sunlight. The Atlantic and Pacific waters which were previously cooled by their entry into the Arctic will not be cooled and could in some parts be warmed. This is entirely new territory.
90465. Nick Palmer at 00:57 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Thanks Chrisd3. I'm glad the actual figure was 10 mill, even though 2 mill is still a lot bigger than 31 k... I also see that I made my point above there too in comment 1!
90466. KR at 00:51 AM on 1 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Perhaps, then, DSL, 'the cool shall rule' by virtue of superior vision?
90467. Ken Lambert at 00:45 AM on 1 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       DB #25 Adelady #27 I imagine the same graph can be applied to Antarctica in the southern summer. So what does the colour on the graph mean DB? Is there a scale? Does that mean that Antarctica absorbs more heat in the southern summer than the tropics too?? I assume you mean 10N to 10S for the tropics. Adelady - my point is that the amounts of energy absorbed in Arctic ice melt are tiny compared with the purported amounts being absorbed by the Earth system globally.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] The scale is on the graph. Black=zero insolation, white=the most insolation. The Arctic in summer receives more daily energy from the sun, both at the surface and the TOA, than does the equator (Antarctic altitude and albedo effects there lessen the impact of its summer insolation surplus):

       

       

90468. Gilles at 00:42 AM on 1 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       it's not a new kind of maths : you just mixed up GtC (of carbon) (actually I should have written Gtoe) and GtCO2 (of carbon dioxide). There is a factor three between them 14 g CH2 -> 44 g CO2. You may be surprised by the result, but it is just due to the forgotten fact that most SRES scenario assume much more than the proved reserves for at least one of the FF - sticking to proved reserves doesn't produce that much CO2.
90469. DSL at 00:41 AM on 1 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       I would, KR, but if the light is coming from a cooler object, I won't be able to see the contribution.
90470. KR at 00:36 AM on 1 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       DB - I understand the moderation role, not a problem. I would encourage everyone to form their own opinions of each poster's contributions in light of their content, and act accordingly.
90471. KR at 00:33 AM on 1 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       A bit of summary here, then. I'll put it in the form of a proof for clarity. - Individual photons have energies, but these do not represent the temperatures of the objects that emitted them. You can say what objects could not have emitted that photon based on temperature, but not which one has. - Absorption of a photon by an object (warmer or colder than the emitting object) has a likelyhood based upon the absorption spectra and the energy of the individual photon; not the temperature of the emitting object. - The Earth's surface has an emissivity and absorptivity of ~0.98 in the IR spectra, so 98% of those photons impinging will be absorbed. - 98% of surface impinging atmospheric thermal radiation (aka "backradiation") will be absorbed by the Earth, as per the Earth absorptivity and atmospheric emissivity spectras. - Each photon absorbed, by the first law of thermodynamics, adds to the internal energy and hence temperature of the absorbing object. - The emitting mass of the atmosphere (due to the lapse rate) is colder than the Earth's surface. - Hence a colder object raises the temperature of a warmer object by it's presence. - Therefore: The assertion by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that a cooler object heating a warmer object violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is categorically false. Q.E.D - Quod erat demonstrandum. --- I don't think that I need to say anything more on this topic. Adieu.
90472. chrisd3 at 00:29 AM on 1 April 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       @Nick Palmer #13

       I also think that the results that someone came up with that over two million US citizens (qualified by the OISM's terms) could have signed the OISM (but didn't!) should be far more widely trumpeted.

       That was right here on SkS, and the number was actually over 10 million: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
90473. KR at 00:22 AM on 1 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel - I think you've been called out; "By thine own words shalt thou be condemned." To wit: "We are all familiar with the Planck spectrum, the amplitude of which is a function of the temperature, But taking one photon (with energy a function of frequency), or even one spectral component, does not represent the entire spectrum thus the temperature is not defined. Although a single photon has energy it does not have a temperature." - damorbel @70, this thread, 24/11/10 (thanks for pointing this out, muoncounter) versus: "But there is no need to have a certain number of particles to make a sample, so one particle with the same energy as the average energy of all the particles also has the same temperature as the whole sample." - damorbel @892, this thread, 31/3/11 Reductio ad absurdum - by contradiction you have disproven your own arguments. You are a troll - willing to say anything, even contradict yourself, in order to prolong an argument. Nothing you have written can be taken seriously, as you are not engaged in a scientific discussion. I have no idea as to your motivations. Perhaps you just like to argue - in that case I consider you a ( -snip- ). Perhaps you are arguing points you don't believe in for ideological reasons - in that case I consider you an ( -snip- ). Or perhaps you do this because it's your job? I'm familiar with that last case; my brother spent years as a denialist of second hand smoke dangers for a major tobacco company. In that case I would ask you the question I asked him - "How much does a soul go for these days?" Overall, I'm disgusted. Everyone - I would encourage you to consider this demonstrated behavior when evaluating anything that damorbel writes, whether here, or on his multiple attempts to redefine the Wiki page on thermodynamics.
       Moderator Response: [DB] I completely agree with you, word for word, but I have a role to fulfill. Sorry for the snips.
90474. les at 00:18 AM on 1 April 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       160 cloa513- both links work for me - and the 2nd is full of links to data sources as you asked for. Maybe you should try another browser or check your computer for malware?
90475. cloa513 at 00:08 AM on 1 April 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       scaddenp I did look at your links- first one is faulty. The second is a bunch of lame excuses
       Moderator Response: [DB] Both links work quite well. If you have issues with discussing climate science, using the scientific method with the intended goal of gaining greater understanding of the science, then perhaps Skeptical Science is not the best place for you.
90476. CBDunkerson at 23:51 PM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles, is this some kind of new math? "giving 2 000 Gt of CO2. Given that the current production of 10 GtC/yr produce approximately +2 ppm/yr, this will eventually increase the CO2 concentration up to 540 ppm" 2,000 Gt CO2 / 10 Gt/yr = 200 years * 2 ppm/yr = 400 ppm + 390 current ppm = 790 eventual ppm, not 540 ppm. Mind you, I haven't checked if any of these figures are correct... I'm just noting that the basic mathematics don't pan out the way you say.
90477. Gilles at 23:38 PM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       so if we burn 400 Gt of coal, and may be 150 Gt of oil and 150 Gt of gas, we will burn approximately 700 Gt of C, giving 2 000 Gt of CO2. Given that the current production of 10 GtC/yr produce approximately +2 ppm/yr, this will eventually increase the CO2 concentration up to 540 ppm - you can do more sophisticated absorption models but that's the right order of magnitude. If we assume that it would be very difficult to keep the total concentration below 450 ppm, the difference between 540 and 450 ppm is S * ln(540/450)/ln(2) = 0.3 S where S is the sensitivity - actually that holds for the equilibrium temperature and not transient response. Note that if the production is decreasing, absorption will become larger than production and after some time, CO2 will also decrease (Bern absorption model predicts only 20 % CO2 staying permanently in the atmosphere). So taking into account this uncertainties, I would say that if we burn 400 Gt of coal, the difference with the best scenario and this one would be around 0.5 °C in 2100, plus or minus the usual uncertainty. I won't certainly kill myself for that.
90478. Composer99 at 23:26 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       With regards to creating a resource for poor climate science and/or unreasonable contrarian positions espoused or propagated by journalists, Deltoid over at ScienceBlogs has long been chronicling the misbehaviour of the Australian newspaper The Australian.
90479. Bob Lacatena at 23:06 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       h pierce, The experiment was well designed and meaningful. The results are therefore meaningful and should be taken as a warning that we are destabilizing too many things at once through our callous actions, and in a very dangerous way that is going to come back to haunt future generations.
90480. john mfrilett at 22:41 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Thank you for another terrific resource to counter mythical climate arguments. Skeptical Science might consider posting the links to politicians supporting evidence based climate policy (are there any?)in response to anti science/education politicians. These climate myths espoused by anti science/education politicians often occurs in the political arena therefore should be answered by other politicians supporting evidence based policy. The former need support and publicity from sources such as Skeptical Science. The denier journalists and politicians already get far to much attention. It is all well and good that scientists step up to the plate but that isn't enough. There needs to be confident well informed politicians to counter the myths of climate change. Is Obama up to the task?
90481. Rob Painting at 22:37 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       H Pierce - In the real ocean any decline in the pH will occur very slowly Nope, that's wrong too. The mean ocean pH can only change slowly as new carbon is to the global inventory, however on local scales there can be large fluctuations as dissolved inorganic carbon is "shuffled" about the ocean. A classic case is the equatorial Eastern Pacific (west coast of the Americas) where the La Nina/El Nino phenomenon occurs. In a La Nina phase, plumes of cold water with high levels of dissolved CO2 reach the surface ocean from down deep. When they do, surface pH can fall dramatically. It's why coral reefs in the area are so poorly developed, patchy in coverage, weakly cemented and prone to high rates of bio-erosion. A useful way of thinking about it, is to liken it to the mean global surface temperature. That doesn't change much, but on local scales, and in short time-frames, there can be significant fluctuations. All marine life have the ability to adapt to fluctuations in ocean pH, and tolerance thresholds will of course vary , but if they couldn't they simply wouldn't survive. It's when the ocean pH falls and stays that way, that problems arise.
90482. CBDunkerson at 22:36 PM on 31 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       BP #25: "All the decrease happened in two distinct steps, one in 1982-85 the other in 1991-94." This statement is simply false. Using the UAH data we get; 1981 was 0.3603 C cooler than 1978 (0.090 C/year) 1985 was 0.4431 C cooler than 1981 (0.089 C/year) 1994 was 0.1550 C cooler than 1985 (0.016 C/year) 2008 was 0.1763 C cooler than 1994 (0.012 C/year) Those numbers would indicate that roughly 55% of the total cooling took place during the years you identified... rather than the 100% ("All the decrease") you claimed. This shows fairly clearly that greenhouse cooling was ongoing before, during, and after the spikes caused by the volcanic eruptions. Of course, the longer term data supplied by Albatross makes that point even more clearly, but I thought it was noteworthy that the original argument was demonstrably false even using the data it was supposedly based upon.
90483. Nick Palmer at 22:14 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Re Rohrbacher: I've posted this point several times to various "pro AGW" sites, including this one but nobody seems to have appreciated it yet. Basically, the OISM petition is worded so that even Hansen or Schmidt could just about sign up to it legitimately (certainly the second paragraph). The operative "sleight of hand" is that the OISM gets one to sign that human release of green house gases "is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic global warming". As we should know, the science is not *certain", just extremely probable but the OISM uses the terms "is" or "will" as an implication that climate science has made an absolute declaration and tens of thousands have blown the whistle on that. Rhetorically, those behind the OISM are implying that because even a legit climatologist could sign (because the scientist knows the science isn't 100% certain) that the 31,000 signers are disputing that there is any "convincing scientific evidence" at all Text from the second paragraph of the OISM: "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." I also think that the results that someone came up with that over two million US citizens (qualified by the OISM's terms) could have signed the OISM (but didn't!) should be far more widely trumpeted
90484. alan_marshall at 22:01 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Should We Include Journalists? In Australia, they are the worst peddlers of misinformation. Would it be useful to include them in the database? For example, the ABC program Media Watch, which monitors the quality and accuracy of broadcasting in Australia, recently took to task Sydney radio talk-back host Alan Jones for the following comment: Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air... It is not as if this was just a passing ignorant comment. It is part of an orchestrated political campaign by Jones against the government’s proposed carbon tax. On such an important reform, people in the media are entitled to express their opinions, but they are not entitled to mislead the public with blatant falsehoods. The organisation Getup has launched proceedings with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), demanding Jones correct his statements. I also pass on the following comment made by a visitor to the Media Watch site: .... anyone can make a complaint under the ACMA commercial radio code of practice directly to the radio station involved. You should find a web form or similar for complaints on each radio station's website. The station is obliged to respond to you within 60 days. If they do not, or if you are not satisfied with the response, you can then complain directly to ACMA. For those of you stateside who enjoy the impartiality of Fox News, the same media baron owns “The Australian” and other newspapers in Australia. They like to regularly publish articles by Bjorn Lomborg. Prominent skeptic journalists with these newspapers who deserve scrutiny include Pies Ackerman, Christopher Pearson and Andrew Bolt.
90485. Rob Painting at 21:56 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       H Pierce @ 18 - Carbonic acid is a weak acid and produces little H ions in water at 20 deg C So how do you think the pH of the global oceans is falling?. What's causing all those hydrogen ions to disassociate from seawater?. Just wondering, because thus far you haven't made much sense. Also only about 1% of the dissolved CO2 is converted to carbonic acid. Carbonic acid & dissolved CO2 make up less than 1% of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. If you are suggesting that carbonic acid itself is what ocean acidification is about, then sorry that's just a fallacy. The oceans are becoming more "acidic" because the concentration of hydrogen ions are increasing, and because it's an inverse logarithmic scale, pH falls. Bicarbonate releases very little H ions See my comment at @15 which accompanies the graphic. You have that back-to-front, the excess hydrogen ions combine with carbonate ions to form bicarbonate. This carbonate buffering process is what causes problems for calcifying marine life, because it reduces the carbonate "building block" which many marine organisms use to build their shells/skeletons. For any interested readers I refer you to Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - The Royal Society 2005. Click on the pdf on the top right-hand corner. It thoroughly covers the subject, without being incomprehensible.
90486. CBDunkerson at 21:54 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       MidwestHES, yeah the 'Alabama pi' thing was a spoof on congressional Republican efforts to legislate that global warming doesn't exist. BTW, Alan's aside about citing 'journalists' who spread these myths might not be a bad idea either. Of course, if you went as far as including blogs among the 'journalists' you might have more material than you could handle.
90487. h pierce at 21:51 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Paul at 17 I was trying to keep it simple. Although the ocean floor and beaches are littered with shells, I recall that shells contain small amounts of calcium silicate that acts as cement to give them strength and a more compact structure. Thus the shells don't release carbonate easily. Unless they are ground to micro bits by pounding surf from a big storm. Another objection to the experiments is that poor little larva were given "pH shock treatment". In the real ocean any decline in the pH will occur very slowly. It is quite possible the species will adapt overtime to the new conditions.
90488. alan_marshall at 21:25 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       Dana, John Congratulations on setting up this very useful tool. I have long toyed with the idea of setting up a “rogues gallery” that profiled people in public life (politicians, journalists, etc.) who are climate change deniers. The idea was to shame them over time as the increasing impact of climate change forced them to eat their words. But I realised that many of these “rogues” were actually decent people who just had climate change “blind spot”. I decided that belittling them in itself did not advance the public debate. Your approach however, targets the words rather than the man. In rebutting their specific statements, it serves the public good and has my full support. I endorse Chemware’s list of quotes by Australian politicians, and will be adding a few more names myself. Photos of Australian politicians can be found at www.aph.gov.au. Is it necessary to restrict ourselves to current politicians? If former politicians, such as George Bush, have in the past made misleading statements, and have not since corrected them, are they fair game?
90489. h pierce at 21:23 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Rob at 15 and 16 Equation 2. Carbonic acid is a weak acid and produces little H ions in water at 20 deg C, ca 0.0001 moles per liter . Also only about 1% of the dissolved CO2 is converted to carbonic acid. Equation 3 Bicarbonate releases very little H ions. The second ionization constant is 4.9 x 10 exp-11 for K2=(H)(CO3)/(HCO3) The diagram is misleading. It I were doing the experiment, I would have added a bed of clean marble rocks and quartz sand.
90490. Bart Verheggen at 20:32 PM on 31 March 2011
       Understanding Solar Evolution Part 2: Planets
       Chris, Could you elaborate on the "status" of this thermostat hypothesis, in comparison with competing hypotheses (of which you metnion the organic CO2 burial and uplifting)? I'm thinking of a "consilience of evidence" style argument: How strongly are the different hypotheses supported by the combined evidence? and in relation to that, how would you characterize the disagreement about these hypotheses amongst experts? I'm trying to get a feel of how strong the evidence and, as a consequence, the consensus is about this topic.
90491. Paul W at 19:55 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       @ H Pierce the situation is a little more complicated with seawater than what you have modelled with your simple experiments with CaCo3. There is other buffers at work in sea water. Sulphates, borates and organics from life. The experience of aquarium keepers with salt water is that attempts to buffer sea water aquariums with ground up shells is that this is not workable as the pKa shifts from about 8.1 to 7.6 with simple addition of CaCO3 powder over shorter and shorter periods. In short adding base but shifting the kPa to lower values is counter productive. A commercial buffer is used with a properly mixed set of buffers at about 8.1 pKa is long term workable.
90492. les at 19:38 PM on 31 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       884 KR " The "2nd law" objection to the greenhouse effect is based upon a mistaken notion.." I don't disagree with you. However I'd like to suggest there is another problem. In the post, the statement of the 2nd law has missed out the phrase: "whose sole result". This is a statement that the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. For practical purposes, the system which consists of: the sun, outer space, the solid earth and the earths atmosphere is not a closed system. Outer space is, for practical purposes, an infinite sink. The sun is, again for practical purposes, an infinite source of energy. No one can deny that energy from the sun reaches the surface of the earth - at least, nor that radiated energy which isn't reabsorbed somewhere leaves the system... This is implicit in the text - body heat is in effect a source of energy external to the heat exchange system which is moderated with blankets. So long as some source continues to pump out energy irrespective of the destination of that energy, we're free to build an engine which uses that energy to, for example, concentrate it up to any temperature we can manage. How that engine works (photons, gases, cogs, whatever) is immaterial - the beauty of things like the statistical and termodynmaies is that they are defined for an abstract engine, which applies to all real engines...
90493. scaddenp at 19:18 PM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       I'd settle for the number of 900 Gt of proven reserves for 2010. That seems pretty well aligned with the assumptions of SRES, but comes from IEA and is pretty much same no. as WCA.
90494. Ken in Oz at 19:10 PM on 31 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Adelady, geothermal does appear to have a lot of potential however, like large scale energy storage it hasn't gotten serious attention. The reality is that Australia is still investing in coal fired power plants and, at best, the Carbon Tax looks intended to encourage a longer term shift to investment in Gas powered plants - which may be able to reach the early, low, easy to reach emissions targets but can't deliver the longer term reductions. Presumably the claim that it can be backup to renewables will justify ongoing construction but when built, operators will probably (on the basis of 'fair competition', jobs and profitablity), resist the kind of intermittent operation that would entail. Carbon Capture and Sequestration has got the lion's share of R&D funding in Australia and has provided a way to justify the ongoing government support for fossil fuels; current projections of future emissions reductions are almost entirely based on optimistic predictions of low cost CCS being taken up widely. Anyone looking to Australia for solutions and inspiration is going to be disappointed.
90495. Rob Painting at 17:40 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       H Pierce - They medium was not properly buffered. They should have added some ground up sea shells or dolomite lime. Altering the pH of the seawater kinda defeats the purpose don't you think?.
90496. Rob Painting at 17:33 PM on 31 March 2011
       Acidification: Oceans past, present & yet to come
       Albatross & Sphaerica - H Pierce is confused when he refers to the "Ocean buffer system" The carbonate buffer typically referred to, are the chemical reactions which take place to inhibit the change in pH. For instance see the diagram below: I've yet to find a graphic which adequately describes the process, but bear with me: Equation 2 Carbonic acid easily breaks down releasing excess hydrogen ions and drives the pH of seawater down (pH being a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. More hydrogen ions = lower pH ). Equation 3 Here's where the buffering part kicks in, some of the excess hydrogen ions combine with carbonate ions to form bicarbonate ions. This last step serves to buffer the acidification because it reduces the concentration of hydrogen ions. So without this last reaction, the pH would be lower. He seems to be referring to geological processes which increase alkalinity (often balancing out volcanic CO2 output) which takes place over the timescale of tens of thousands of years.
90497. MidwestHES at 17:27 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       With regard to my previous post... I believe I called the Alabama "pi" fiasco a little too soon. Upon further research, I have concluded that the article, and subsequent rewrites were in fact satire...but indeed brilliantly written. The instance I was trying to find in the first place happened in Indiana in 1897. The original piece, with "disclaimer" at top is linked below...not real, but all too funny! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-squires/republicans-introduce-leg_b_837828.html My apologies!
90498. ejo60 at 17:27 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       For the Netherlands you can add lots of politicians to the database. I commented upon the statement "we can not rely on scientists who don't speak the truth" once made by Jacqueline Cramer in my blog: here The bad thing is, Jacqueline Cramer is from labour and from that part in the political spectrum you would expect support for climate polities. Climategate left a lot of damage, and in this case some politicians (such as Jacqueline Cramer but also RIchard Mos) simply repeat that the IPCC is lying, to put it bluntly. So where does this fit in the arguments database, perhaps that temperature records are inaccurate and that tree-ring proxy temperature series were manipulated?
90499. MidwestHES at 17:10 PM on 31 March 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       @Pete Did you know that the state of South Dakota even cited that Oregon Petition Project nonsense in recent legislation...essentially making it clear that the state is officially an AGC denier. Check it out... http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2926 It reminds me of the politician that, years ago, tried to pass legislation making "pi" exactly 3. LOL...get this...I was thinking it was back in the 70's...or earlier maybe. When I just tried to look it up to quote facts, I found that the issue has been raised AGAIN...This time in Alabama...LAST WEEK!!!! MADNESS!!!!!
90500. Gilles at 16:48 PM on 31 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       what are the known coal reserves following you ?

Prev  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  Next