@ CCv3, et al
In context of the OP, this may be of crucial importance.
It is truly amazing in scope and implication.
Thank you Write4U, at least you link indicates you were catching my drift.
@ CCv3, et al In context of the OP, this may be of crucial importance. Robert Hazen: Unanswered questions in deep carbon research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzgHZBr_m1Y It is truly amazing in scope and implication.
Published on Jun 3, 2013 Dr Robert Hazen's lecture at the annual Molecular Frontiers Symposium at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, May 2013. The topic of the 2013 symposium was "Exploring the boundaries: the science of the extremes". Check our YouTube channel for more exciting science videos! For more information, visit www.molecularfrontiers.org
Why Deep Carbon? Robert M. Hazen and Craig M. Schiffries Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington All chemical elements are special, but some are more special than others. Of the 88 naturally occurring, long-lived elements on Earth, carbon stands alone. As the basis of all biomolecules, no other element contributes so centrally to the wellbeing and sustainability of life on Earth, including our human species. The near-surface carbon cycle profoundly affects Earth’s changeable climate, the health of ecosystems, the availability of inexpensive energy, and the resilience of the environment. No other element plays a role in so diverse an array of useful solid, liquid, and gaseous materials: food and fuels; paints and dyes; paper and plastics; abrasives and lubricants; electrical conductors and insulators; thermal conductors and insulators; ultra-strong structural materials and ultra-soft textiles; and precious stones of unmatched beauty. No other element engages in such an extraordinary range of chemical bonding environments: with oxidation states ranging from −4 to +4, carbon bonds to itself and more than 80 other elements. Carbon’s chemical behavior in Earth’s hidden deep interior epitomizes the dynamic processes that set apart our planet from all other known worlds. Past consideration of the global carbon cycle has focused primarily on the atmosphere, oceans, and shallow crustal environments. A tremendous amount is known about these parts of Earth’s carbon cycle. By contrast, relatively little is known about the deep carbon cycle (Fig. 1). Knowledge of the deep interior, which may contain more than 90% of Earth’s carbon (Javoy 1997), is limited (Table 1). Basic questions about deep carbon are poorly constrained: • How much carbon is stored in Earth’s deep interior? • What are the reservoirs of that carbon? • How does carbon move among reservoirs? • Are there signi cant carbon uxes between Earth’s deep interior and the surface? • What is the nature and extent of deep microbial life? • Are there deep abiotic sources of methane and other hydrocarbons? • Did deep organic chemistry play a role in life’s origins? Key unanswered questions guide research on carbon in Earth. ... http://www.minsocam.org/msa/rim/RiMG075/RiMG075_Ch01.pdfI'm happy to report I'm familiar with this talk and totally agree it's a must see - and a fascinating look at both the complexities and importance of Carbon (it's good for plants ;-P is only a small part of it.) and the way real science operates. Thanks for posting the link!
Yes, all indications point at people not being interested in learning about climate science. Considering the transparent, childish lies they continue to embrace no matter how many times the details get explained to them. //skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomyYou call the public stupid, but these are simple question I am asking. Why are you giving me the two-step on this subject? Very, very simple. Read the article and come to a conclusion of the ideas the article is about. Not what you think it should be about. And do not blame the reader for not adding what you think they should be adding to the article. That is not how the real-world works. You have tried twice now and both time failed to stay on the subject of discussion.MikeYohe: First question. The article was posted in the news media and made it to the top of the news outlets… It seems that they are admitting that there are still many problems with the carbon and temperate charts. They are saying that CO2 and global average temperature (GAT) go hand and hand.
NO! You are relying on the big Lie of Omission. This is talking about measuring, recording, processing overwhelmingly complex information. You also hide how small these differences in numbers being argued over are, worst you avoid the bottomline truth that: EVERY MOLECULE OF CO2 ADDS TO OUR ATMOSPHERE’S INSULATION ABILITY. NOTHING MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE UNTIL YOU ACCEPT THAT GEOPHYSICAL REALITY FIRST AND FOREMOST.You are wrong. I am not relying on anything. I am making the point that people are not problem. People read the news and have realized that much of the news is fake news. Now they are beginning to realize that a lot of the science is fake science. You keep posting a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please explain how I am relying on the big lie of omission when I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Are you saying the article is fake science? Or are you saying the article is correct by does not support your political viewpoints?
Hell, I haven’t even seen you formulate a serious question that could be addressed, merely the nebulous implication that much remains confusing.
But my child it remains confusing to youz simply because that’s the way youz demand it to be.
Why are you giving me the two-step on this subject? Very, very simple. Read the article and come to a conclusion of the ideas the article is about.
What fuk'n "question" - what does the article not make clear?//www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2017/07/170706113244.htm also {the two articles are the same press release} phys. org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos. html"Our approach has shown that the decreasing pressure at the seafloor could have induced increased lava- and carbon dioxide emissions. The enhanced volcanic carbon dioxide flux may have stabilized the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the climate system's descent into the last ice age," adds Prof. Dr. Lars Rüpke of GEOMAR. The investigations suggest that close interactions between thesolid earth and the climate system exist also on geologically relatively short time scales of about 5,000 to 15,000 years. …
An international research team led by the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and the Alfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research has now discovered that a falling sea level may have caused enhanced volcanic activity in the ocean, which can explain the anomaly. The results are published today in the journal Nature Communications. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos.html#jCpThis has absolutely nothing to do with today's situation. Just as your beloved Milankovitch Cycles have absolutely no bearing on today's situation. Though they are important in understanding the details of past climate changes. This study is about a unique lining up of volcanoes, ocean circulation patterns and other dynamic components of Earth's climate system and short term temperature circulation questions - it has nothing to do with understanding CO2 physics, or the consequences of injecting getting close to 4 billion (<4,000,000,000) tons of CO2 into our atmosphere month after month after month. but you and your type refuse to recognize such fundamental truths.
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities{All rapid changes to Earth's greenhouse gas concentration creates short-term heat distribution chaos - that is the same as it ever was.} Mike, this discussion is about the general avoidance of learning about and acknowledging the First Order CARBON THEORY which must be thoroughly understood before anything else in climate science can make any sense to you. You come here with distractions that only go to underscore my assertion that most people these days, at least in this country, willfully and actively try not to seriously learn about climate science.
Topic: scientific fixation on the carbon theory.
Then go to post #34: “nothing ever gets learned, because at the heart of the matter people don’t want to learn about it"
The debate started on post #35. I post one of the latest articles about climate change. I ask you if this was the type of article that you would back up. No answer yet.
Next, I point out that this article was very confusing on the carbon theory. The point being was that I believe people do want to learn about climate change. But, it was the article that was confusing.
The question is serious, simple and on subject.
The part the article is confusing about. “Climate evolution shows some regularities, which can be traced throughout long periods of earth’s history. One of them is that the global average temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere usually go hand-in-hand. To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa."
Mike Yohe said, To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa." That may be correct, but we are in the man-made vice versa cycle, thus the CO2 values increase and may lead to a domino effect, which will make the earth's ecosphere unlivable for humans. Is that simple enough?
Allow me a slight correction to the above
Mike Yohe said,
To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa."
That may be correct, but we are in the man-made vice versa cycle, thus the CO2 values increase and may lead to a domino effect, which will make the earth's ecosphere unlivable for humans. Is that simple enough?That is the bottomline.
It would be simple enough if not for committed trolls.
As DougC points out Mike’s a troll, he’s not out for a constructive dialogue, it’s playing rhetorical games and keeping the “debate” or more honestly keeping the confusion cranked up as much as possible is his goal.
Where I disagree with Doug is that I’ve always used these exchanges as learning experiences, I wouldn’t know half of what I do about our climate system if not for chasing down the bones and challenges that climate science contrarians and trolls toss out there. If not for all that homework, I wouldn’t now have the foundation to know how to appreciation obvious bull shit and understand why it’s bs.
It’s that leave them be mentally that got us to this damned political and environmental disaster we are living today.
I dare say if science defenders had adopted my more aggressive, in your face challenges, calling lies lies and offered corrections and explanations,
our public wouldn’t have remained so willfully dumb on the topic.
Disagree on a couple of points. First, I did not say that. That came from one of the latest articles on the subject that was printed in respectable journals. Second is that I never said I agree with the vice versa they were claiming. That claim was based upon a spike 80,000 years ago. They were trying to explain the extra carbon in the air not following the ice core charts of first the temperature changes then the co2 changes. I bet it had to do with Mt. Toba in 74,000 B.C. That was 76,000 years ago. It lasted for 4,000 years. But what if Mt. Toba started erupting before the big eruption 4,000 years earlier. To close on the timeline to ignore.
And as far as unlivable. That has to do with the lag and the amounts of carbon we have put into the air over the last 500 years. We are 30 years into the lag and it is warming up but not as much as one would expect in the global warming cycle alone. If the climate change warming kicks in the way some are saying, then we are in a world of hurt. If it doesn’t and we stabilize then this may turn out to be a mild global warming cycle peak compared to past global warming cycles. Yes, pretty basic and simple.
The debate started.... I post one of the latest articles about climate change.But you ignored
Team takes temperature to determine cause of Ice Age June 13, 2017 https://phys.org/news/2017-06-team-temperature-ice-age.html#nRlv "This study shows for the first time how temperatures changed across the whole ocean as the earth entered the last ice age," says Karen Kohfeld, Associate Professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.Fast facts: Atmospheric carbon dioxide dropped in several steps over 100,000 years, as the earth entered the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Kohfeld's study put together a global picture of how ocean surface temperatures, sea ice, and deep-ocean circulation changed over this time. The first drop in carbon dioxide, 115,000 years ago, occurred because of early cooling of the poles and expansion of sea ice around Antarctica The second carbon dioxide drop, 70,000 years ago, was accompanied by a re-organization of the deep ocean and heightened ocean productivity The lowest, ice age carbon dioxide levels occurred 20,000 years ago when ocean temperatures, productivity, deep circulation, and sea-ice had changed the most ...Explore further: Climate change caused by ocean, not just atmosphere, study finds
I point out that this article (Falling sea level caused volcanos to overflow) was very confusing on the carbon theory. The point being was that I believe people do want to learn about climate change. But, it was the article that was confusing. The question is serious, simple and on subject.Then why are you ignoring my explanation and repeating the same question? There is nothing confusing about the study.
To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values (atmospheric concentration) also decrease and vice versa."Right and no one is disputing that, this is the important sentence,
"Our approach has shown that the decreasing pressure at the seafloor could have induced increased lava and carbon dioxide emissions. The enhanced volcanic carbon dioxide flux may have stabilized the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the climate system's descent into the last ice age," says Prof. Dr. Lars Rüpke of GEOMAR. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos.html#jCpYou keep ignoring there are other factors involved. Also, to repeat this study is about Heat Distribution not CO2 Theory and you refuse to learn and recognize that distinction.
It doesn’t matter where that came from, deliberately misreading is deliberately misreading it.
That came from one of the latest articles on the subject that was printed in respectable journals. ... If the climate change warming kicks in the way some are saying, then we are in a world of hurt. If it doesn’t and we stabilize then this may turn out to be a mild global warming cycle peak compared to past global warming cycles. Yes, pretty basic and simple.Lying jerk, it is heating plenty fast, and in line with the serious models.
http ://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, Stanford climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field report that it's on pace to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period. Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century. ~~~~~~~ Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age A major new study includes some scary implications about how rapidly humans are changing the Earth’s climate https: //www .theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/24/earth-is-warming-is-50x-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age
We ARE already in a world of hurt, even if it’s hasn’t reached everyone yet.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/category/show/extreme-weather
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2017
These extreme weather events show that our climate is in 'uncharted territory' | World Economic Forum
It would be simple enough if not for committed trolls. As DougC points out Mike's a troll, he's not out for a constructive dialogue, it's playing rhetorical games and keeping the "debate" or more honestly keeping the confusion cranked up as much as possible is his goal. Where I disagree with Doug is that I've always used these exchanges as learning experiences, I wouldn't know half of what I do about our climate system if not for chasing down the bones and challenges that climate science contrarians and trolls toss out there. If not for all that homework, I wouldn't now have the foundation to know how to appreciation obvious bull shit and understand why it's bs. It's that leave them be mentally that got us to this damned political and environmental disaster we are living today. I dare say if science defenders had adopted my more aggressive, in your face challenges, calling lies lies and offered corrections and explanations, our public wouldn't have remained so willfully dumb on the topic.Sure, blame on trolls that does not even exists except in your mind. The fact that 2.5 billion has been spent pushing consensus science might just be some of the parts of this subject you refuse to come to grips with. Calling people stupid and putting yourself on a pedestal try to teach the poor helpless idiots. You might take the time to realize that consensus science is part of the reason thing are as bad as they are today. It was consensus science that gave us nuclear energy over geothermal energy. The same science that claimed we would not even be using carbon driven cars by the 1980’s. Real science use facts and data. This data needs the computer models to be understood. Something that you don’t want. My biggest fear for climate change right now is that the IPCC has a lot of political pressure from these consensus scientist, who are living off taxpayer’s money. It is easy to see that the IPCC is having a hard time with consensus science fighting real science. And if we lose the IPCC then it is all political. And politically it is about globalization and wanting to move 15 trillion from the US taxpayers to the rest of the world. I wish you would stop selling out your fellow American.
I point out that this article (Falling sea level caused volcanos to overflow) was very confusing on the carbon theory. The point being was that I believe people do want to learn about climate change. But, it was the article that was confusing. The question is serious, simple and on subject.Then why are you ignoring my explanation and repeating the same question? There is nothing confusing about the study. Sorry, I did miss that part of your posting. My fault. I am real busy with work at this time. Good, we agree then that the article was confusing to people on the carbon theory? Is that correct? Next, I would like to agree on what choices people have about carbon theory.
STOP MISQUOTING ME!
You continue to delude yourself.
It's about how the heat moves through the system! It's also, though not explicitly mentioned - though extreme volcanism is a strong hint, about sulfide aerosols acting to reflect insolation before it has a change to be converted to infrared. Good, we agree then that the article was confusing to people on the carbon theory? Is that correct? Next, I would like to agree on what choices people have about carbon theory.NO - &*#!%$$$$! There are no choices other than to lie to yourself or recognize the rock solid exquisite understanding that scientists working independently throughout the globe have achieved. Recognize the many modern marvels we depend on that would be impossible with that established exquisite understanding.
The Non-Expert Problem - Why We Can Be Sure of CO2 Science http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.htmlContinuing to divert with kindergarten bullshit, as is your habit, is intellectual fraud. Hell, from the standpoint of future generations criminal.
Calling people stupid and putting yourself on a pedestal (it's not me on the pedestal, it's the rock solid understanding!!!) try to teach the poor helpless idiots.Lets be clear Willfully Stupid ! It's a label that defines an attitude and if it applies it applies >:( I'm beyond worrying about stroking faker's egos anymore. I don't give a damned if I come off as a little rude at this point, it sure as hell is beats being ruthlessly maliciously shamelessly dishonest the way your words are.
The same science that claimed we would not even be using carbon driven cars by the 1980’sSee what a deceptively malicious a hole you are. NO! You are talking about corporate ad agents. For the record, regarding the serious science. Science, and scientists, claimed nothing about how we should respond to the unavoidable truth that the more and the faster we inject CO2 into our atmosphere the faster our planet will warm. The faster our planet warms the faster and more extreme our weather patterns must be expected to get. The succeeding decades are proving the truth in that understanding. You are a committed crazy-maker dude.
You continue to delude yourself.Why can't capitalism fix climate change ??It's about how the heat moves through the system! It's also, though not explicitly mentioned - though extreme volcanism is a strong hint, about sulfide aerosols acting to reflect insolation before it has a change to be converted to infrared. Good, we agree then that the article was confusing to people on the carbon theory? Is that correct? Next, I would like to agree on what choices people have about carbon theory.NO - &*#!%$$$$! There are no choices other than to lie to yourself or recognize the rock solid exquisite understanding that scientists working independently throughout the globe have achieved. Recognize the many modern marvels we depend on that would be impossible with that established exquisite understanding.The Non-Expert Problem - Why We Can Be Sure of CO2 Science http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.htmlContinuing to divert with kindergarten bullshit, as is your habit, is intellectual fraud. Hell, from the standpoint of future generations criminal.Calling people stupid and putting yourself on a pedestal (it's not me on the pedestal, it's the rock solid understanding!!!) try to teach the poor helpless idiots.Lets be clear Willfully Stupid ! It's a label that defines an attitude and if it applies it applies >:( I'm beyond worrying about stroking faker's egos anymore. I don't give a damned if I come off as a little rude at this point, it sure as hell is beats being ruthlessly maliciously shamelessly dishonest the way your words are.The same science that claimed we would not even be using carbon driven cars by the 1980’sSee what a deceptively malicious a hole you are. NO! You are talking about corporate ad agents. For the record, regarding the serious science. Science, and scientists, claimed nothing about how we should respond to the unavoidable truth that the more and the faster we inject CO2 into our atmosphere the faster our planet will warm. The faster our planet warms the faster and more extreme our weather patterns must be expected to get. The succeeding decades are proving the truth in that understanding. You are a committed crazy-maker dude.
Why can't capitalism fix climate change ??There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape.
Why can't capitalism fix climate change ??There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape. So then we die or capitalism dies??
Why can't capitalism fix climate change ??There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape. So then we die or capitalism dies??We will first destroy this planet, then die. But then this thread was supposed to be about addressing the idiots who refuse to learn about what the f'n Carbon Theory is all about in the first place.