Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

C Africa
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:59 am
Closest Airfield: Wonderboom
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by C Africa » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:12 am

Wingnutter wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:28 am
C Africa wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:22 am
Maybe my post was misinterpreted.

I am simply saying that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not increasing by nearly as much as the amount of CO2 that gets spewed into the atmosphere because large amounts of that gets dissolved into the oceans.

So simply put, the reservoir of CO2 is much larger than just the atmosphere.

Which is why the percentage in the atmosphere is so VERY VERY low despite the billions of tons we pump into the air every year.

I am NOT saying that the oceans actually add to the CO2, I am saying the oceans are our buffer delaying the increase in the atmosphere!


C
From the American Chemical Society website;

Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived "greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750. Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic. CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades."

But what would they know?
Wingnutter, read what I said.

In simple terms, if it wasn't for the buffer effect of the ocean, CO2 levels should have been at least 10 (or maybe a 100 times, I'm not sure of the exact equation) times higher than that by now (based on the amounts of CO2 we pump into the air).

And yes we have been pumping Methane into the air. But the only methane items of concern are the ones that have INCREASED their production in the last century or so. So blaming cows for the methane is daft. When earth gas is extracted they separate the methane (as they don't have a use for it, they keep only the "handy gas" which is butane and propane etc). They then simply leak this methane into the air (ok they burn some of it, you can see the flames on top of the towers at Mosgas, but that doesn't "solve" the problem).

C
User avatar
zander
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by zander » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:00 pm

C Africa wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:12 am
Wingnutter wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:28 am
C Africa wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:22 am
Maybe my post was misinterpreted.

I am simply saying that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not increasing by nearly as much as the amount of CO2 that gets spewed into the atmosphere because large amounts of that gets dissolved into the oceans.

So simply put, the reservoir of CO2 is much larger than just the atmosphere.

Which is why the percentage in the atmosphere is so VERY VERY low despite the billions of tons we pump into the air every year.

I am NOT saying that the oceans actually add to the CO2, I am saying the oceans are our buffer delaying the increase in the atmosphere!


C
From the American Chemical Society website;

Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm and CH4 levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

"Data for the past 2000 years show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O – three important long-lived "greenhouse gases – have increased substantially since about 1750. Rates of increase in levels of these gases are dramatic. CO2, for instance, never increased more than 30 ppm during any previous 1,000-year period in this record but has already risen by 30 ppm in the past two decades."

But what would they know?
Wingnutter, read what I said.

In simple terms, if it wasn't for the buffer effect of the ocean, CO2 levels should have been at least 10 (or maybe a 100 times, I'm not sure of the exact equation) times higher than that by now (based on the amounts of CO2 we pump into the air).
That does not change the crisis at hand, it is like putting a bunch of aircraft in the air and simply forgetting about them feeling relieved that there is now more space on the ground for new aircraft. But those aircraft up in the air needs to come down some or other time. And they Will !

Same with the so called co2 buffer, you can fill the ocean with co2, but the effect at the end of the day is just making things worse, at some stage the ocean will turn completely acidic which in itself will be devastating to animals and humans, and the absorption will then stop entirely.

Four of the “big five” mass extinctions, and several more minor environmental crises in Earth’s past, were associated with abrupt global warming and ocean acidification

Lets look at the buffer effect in more detail:

The oceans are important because they act as a buffer; that is, they absorb much of the effects of greenhouse gases. In fact, the oceans absorb a lot of human carbon pollution. This is a big help for us because without the oceans, the climate would change much faster. 
BUT Since the oceans absorb so much of our carbon pollution and the resulting heat (93% of the extra heat), they turn a short-term problem into a long-term problem.

Just like a fly wheel can be used to store rotating energy in a machine, the oceans store heat energy and chemical energy that can later manifest itself.

The pollution we emit today will have effects for many years We cannot just stop emitting pollution and think this problem will immediately go away. We have to plan ahead. And, importantly, we have to stop emitting before most of the effects are evident ! ! !

There were four key findings the authors of the buffer article cited. First, as I mentioned, they report that the oceans are absorbing almost all the heat from greenhouse gases. Over the past six decades, the amount of heat at all levels of the ocean has increased. This heating will continue into the future.

When oceans warm, sea levels rise (warming water expands). Warm water also evaporates much faster to the air so that the atmosphere becomes more humid, resulting in more heavy rainfalls and flooding.

A second conclusion is that the heat may lead to major changes in the ocean currents. There is a really important flow of ocean waters called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. It is a stream of water that passes from the warm tropics up toward Europe. Then the water gets cold and dense, sinks, and flows back towards the equator. This current is responsible for the warm wet weather in England, for example (compared with other locations with the same latitude). The report discusses a potential weakening of this current. If the current were to weaken (or stop altogether), there would be major effects to the weather in Europe and North America.

So what made some LIPs destructive and others not? And, you may be asking, what possible relevance do these ancient events have for us today?

The answer is that they confirm what scientists have modelled from ocean chemistry: CO2 emission rates mattered back then just as they do now. In fact they are key.

Lets go into the science for those wanting exceptional detail:

In a time of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the surface layer of the ocean absorbs most (but not all) of that excess CO2 to regain balance with the atmospheric levels (Henry’s Law). Once dissolved in seawater, that CO2 reacts with water to make carbonic acid, a process that takes about a minute to achieve equilibrium, and then the fun starts.
That formation of carbonic acid triggers a cascading set of reactions called the “carbonate pH stat” that produces some free hydrogen ions (protons), bicarbonate ions, and an exchange between bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. These relatively quick reactions enable the oceans to absorb 10 times more CO2 than pure water could without them.
Normal seawater is alkaline, which means it has a relatively low concentration of hydrogen ions, so normally the balance of the reactions is tilted in favor of carbonate production. But as more and more CO2 is absorbed, the proportion of hydrogen ions (pH) increases, tilting the reactions away from carbonate and generating more bicarbonate.

That imbalance is “ocean acidification.” 
The pH balance can be restored by adding more carbonate, but that’s where we hit a snag.

You will see that the CO2 side of the balance is quick, but on the other side of the balance the processes that replenish carbonate are much, much slower.

Since the atmosphere is in contact with the surface of the ocean (not the deep ocean),

it is this smaller reservoir of carbon that is most immediately affected. It increases in acidity and reduces its carbonate levels.
The surface ocean layer is slowly replaced by water from the deep ocean, but that is a process that takes about a thousand years. Carbonate from the land washes in from rivers as a result of rock weathering – but that process is even slower at replenishing carbonate.

The result is that for continued large CO2 emissions on a timescale of centuries, the surface ocean bears the brunt and gets ever more depleted in carbonate, and becomes increasingly acidic. Many shell-building marine organisms need water that is highly saturated in carbonate for them to be able to make their shells. As acidification increases, and carbonate saturation decreases, it becomes harder for those organisms to make calcium carbonate shells as their biochemistry has to fight against ocean chemistry increasingly tilted towards dissolving shells, not making them.

As CO2 emissions continue at high rates, it creates a domino effect of ocean chemistry and climate:


1. As carbonate is depleted (as oceans acidify) the oceans get progressively less efficient at absorbing CO2 (technically the “uptake factor” decreases) …

2. … so CO2 builds in the atmosphere, faster than before, even if emission rates are unchanged, resulting in worsening greenhouse warming.

3. As sea temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases (see 2 above)

4. Warming oceans may slow the major ocean currents, slowing the replenishment of surface waters by deep waters, allowing the CO2 uptake factor to decrease even further.

5. Warming oceans hold less oxygen, stressing marine life, which combines with acidification to make a hostile environment for complex life in the surface layer of the ocean. As plankton suffers and the food web collapses, the efficiency of the “biological pump” that exports carbon from the surface ocean to the deep via a snow of tiny dead bodies, organic molecules and fecal pellets, slows down. This leaves the surface ocean even more saturated in carbon, (see 2 above).

6. Bacteria thrive in the warmer oceans, increasing their metabolic rate and their digestion of the remains of other life, further slowing the export of carbon from the surface ocean to deep water.
All these act in concert to saturate the surface ocean with CO2 and so exacerbate the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, accelerating global warming.
User avatar
Wingnutter
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2251
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:14 pm
Closest Airfield: Chek Lap Kok VHHH
Location: Hong Kong
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 31 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by Wingnutter » Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 am

The climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists seem to present their arguments in the same way - instead of looking at the big picture, glaringly obvious elephant in the room, they choose instead to try to prove their case by focussing instead on detail, often using information from dubious, unverified sources. It's a bit like trying to prove the existence of father christmas by trying to show that a fat man in a red outfit can slide down a chimney.

greenhouse.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
User avatar
zander
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by zander » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:54 pm

The loons have pricked the hornets nest again... no matter how much they get stung, they just keep coming back for more #-o :lol:

Can't wait for the responses.... [-o< :lol:

Climate Change Fills Storms With More Rain

When a tropical storm is approaching, its intensity or wind speed often gets the bulk of the attention. But as Tropical Storm Barry bears down on the Gulf Coast in the coming days, it’s the water that the storm will bring with it that has weather watchers worried.

The National Weather Service is calling for roughly 10 to 20 inches of rain to fall from late Thursday night through Saturday. The average rainfall for July in New Orleans, which is in the path of the storm, is just under six inches.

And Tropical Storm Barry, which may become a Category 1 hurricane before making landfall, will drop rain on already saturated land. On Wednesday, the region was hit by severe thunderstorms, which dropped as much as seven inches of rain according to preliminary National Weather Service data.

“Climate change is in general increasing the frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall storms,” said Andreas Prein, a project scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

This week’s rainfall came after the region experienced an extremely wet spring, causing the region’s rivers to swell, and raising concerns that the upcoming storm may overtop levees in New Orleans. “If you look at the records, mostly it’s the water that kills most people,” Dr. Prein said.

In an email interview, David Gochis, a hydrometerological scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that flooding of the Mississippi River had left very little room to accommodate additional water, and that the storm surge would inhibit river water from flowing out to sea.

“The ingredients are there for a real catastrophe if the flood control infrastructure simply gets overwhelmed,” he said.

In recent years, researchers have found that hurricanes have lingered longer, as Barry is expected to do, and dumped more rainfall — a sign of climate change, said Christina Patricola, a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a co-author of a study that found that climate change is making tropical cyclones wetter. (Tropical cyclones include both hurricanes and tropical storms, which are hurricanes’ less speedier kin.)

Researchers have been studying the effects of climate change on tropical cyclones because those sorts of storms are driven by warm water. Water in the gulf is 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer, according to Dr. Prein, who said: “This is really increasing the likelihood of a hurricane to form in this basin. And it will increase the intensity of the hurricane as well.”

Though storms can form at any time, the Atlantic hurricane season stretches from June 1 through Nov. 30 because that is typically when the Atlantic Ocean’s waters are warm enough to sustain storms. But the oceans are now warmer than ever: They have absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat caused by human-released greenhouse gas emissions.

“We wanted to understand how climate change so far could have influenced tropical cyclone events,” Dr. Patricola said about her study. “And then the second part is to understand how future warming could influence these events.”

The researchers used climate models to simulate how tropical cyclone intensity, or wind speed, and rainfall would change if hurricanes like Katrina, Irma and Maria had occurred absent climate change and under future climate scenarios. They found that for all three storms, climate change increased rainfall by up to 9 percent.

This study is not the first to find that climate change is causing tropical cyclones to have more rainfall. Studies on Hurricane Harvey found that climate change contributed as much as 38 percent, or 19 inches, of the more than 50 inches of rain that fell in some places. Dr. Patricola’s study broadens the research by using global climate models and analyzing a large number of storms.

“What’s really interesting is that, regardless of the methodology that you use, we’re starting to see more and more evidence that climate change so far has been enhancing the rainfall on some of these recent hurricane events,” she said.

When the researchers looked at the impact on storms under some possible future conditions, they found that under scenarios with higher greenhouse gas emissions there would be more rainfall associated with storms. The largest increases would occur over regions, like the Gulf Coast, that also have the heaviest historical rainfalls.

In other words, the wetter places are just going to get wetter.

And the structure of cities may exacerbate the problem even further, said Gabriele Villarini, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Iowa.

At issue: Dirt absorbs water, but paved surfaces such as roads, sidewalks and even the footprint of building homes that make up cities don’t. The end result is that less water gets absorbed and the excess inevitably has to go somewhere.

Dr. Villarini and his colleagues researched what might have happened in Houston in 2017 during Hurricane Harvey if the area had been cropland. They looked at both the changes in rainfall patterns that cities cause as well as differences in how water behaves based on ground type. They found that the twin effects increased the likelihood of extreme flooding by 21 times, he said.

In addition to factors faced by most cities, New Orleans has some unique geological factors at play. There are degraded wetlands and a complex drainage system that keeps much of the city dry enough for development but has also contributed to roughly half of the city sinking below sea level, making it especially vulnerable.

https://globalpossibilities.org/climate ... sis-shows/

Return to “123.45”