The harder the Alarmists try ...

[skierinvermont]

ooo the carbon cycle! that's what 8th grade science class? teach me more!!!

[Sunny and Warm]

ooo the carbon cycle! that's what 8th grade science class? teach me more!!!

I felt the need to teach you. What does that say about you in my eyes?

[skierinvermont]

I felt the need to teach you. What does that say about you in my eyes?

that you're an arrogant kid that doesn't realize that most people are familiar with everything you are posting and the errors you are making

[skierinvermont]

The paper you posted is about how the SAM modulates atmospheric CO2 slightly... it openly says that the southern ocean has been a massive net sink of CO2 and that human emissions will continue to lead to more CO2 in the southern ocean. It doesn't support your claim in the slightest.. it directly contradicts it. You obviously didn't read beyond the title.

[PhillipS]

What qualifications do you have to have to write a paper for peer review?

Not to rip Bethesda but if he wrote a paper on his thoughts that the sea ice is going to be at mid 90s levels by 2025 and 1970s levels by 2040. Would it get accepted? I mean how would he come up with evidence when there is none? But even if there is none for that scenario does every paper get accepted? How does it work? Thanks.

I had my first paper published while I was still an undergraduate so you don't really have to have any credentials to get a paper published. Just sound research. Though in the real world it helps to have a masters or doctorate degree and to be affiliated with a prominent research group. Particularly if you want it published in a high-profile journal like Science. Space in the top publications is very, very competitive.

You're right that Bethesda would have to come up with data somehow. Often that means data collected in the field, but there seems to be a growing trend towards 're-analysis' of data collected by others. Re-analyses can be done on a smaller budget and without risking frostbite, or bug bite.

As for the process of publishing, say, the results of your sea ice investigations, the first thing you would do is a pick a journal you'd like to be published in and download thier guidelines for submission. Next you'd prepare your draft paper in accordance with the guidlines and submit it, with any needed supporting information, to the editor. If your paper isn't rejected out of hand (and many are, for many reasons not related to their conclusions) then your paper would be routed to the reviewers to be read and commented upon. Assuming the reviewers don't collectively say "Is this some sort of sick joke!?" the journal editor will eventually get back to you with their comments and a list of needed changes to your draft. You make the changes and resubmit your paper. The editor may accept the revised paper and set a date for publication, or he may send it out for another round of review and comment. This submit/review/revise cycle can take more than a year, a year during which other researchers can scoop you by publishing the same results elsewhere. Or publish new data which complelely rebuts your conclusions. Nobody ever said it would be fun or easy.

[Sunny and Warm]

that you're an arrogant kid that doesn't realize that most people are familiar with everything you are posting and the errors you are making

No, that you're an angry person who knows that the science won't support his deep held beliefs and that your desire to regulate the world economy through the CO2 scam will never be realized. Have a nice day!

[Sunny and Warm]

The paper you posted is about how the SAM modulates atmospheric CO2 slightly... it openly says that the southern ocean has been a massive net sink of CO2 and that human emissions will continue to lead to more CO2 in the southern ocean. It doesn't support your claim in the slightest.. it directly contradicts it. You obviously didn't read beyond the title.

Listen Skip, every paper must have the AGW mantra in it to get published, so why even bring it up. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. The fact is that the paper you reference DOES support my claim, yet you are unable to acknowledge that. Take off the blinders and see the real world.

[skierinvermont]

Here is the critical chart from the paper YOU posted, which shows the southern ocean has been a huge net sink of CO2. It differentiates between the 'naturally caused' and 'anthropogenically caused' CO2 flux. 'contemporary' = the total flux. Negative flux = ocean uptake. Positive flux = ocean outgassing.

The net total flux is consistently very negative. The 'natural' flux oscillates from slightly positive to slightly negative. Which is outweighed by an order of magnitude by the consistently very negative anthropogenic flux.

The southern ocean has far more CO2 in it today than it did 50 years ago. As do all of the global oceans.

[skierinvermont]

In other words, the chart from the paper you posted about the southern ocean reveals the southern ocean has absorbed on averaged .5 Petagrams of carbon per year since 1958.

That comes out to 25 billion Kg of carbon gained by the southern ocean alone.

The southern ocean is currently absorbing .7 petagrams of carbon per year NET.

[Sunny and Warm]

In other words, the chart from the paper you posted about the southern ocean reveals the southern ocean has absorbed on averaged .5 Petagrams of carbon per year since 1958.

That comes out to 25 billion Kg of carbon gained by the southern ocean alone.

The southern ocean is currently absorbing .7 petagrams of carbon per year NET.

fantastic, but not my point. Try to stay on topic. Go back and read what started this, and then respond to me.

[skierinvermont]

fantastic, but not my point. Try to stay on topic. Go back and read what started this, and then respond to me.

you said that the sun has caused warming which has caused the oceans to 'out-gas'

except as the paper you posted shows (and everybody else here except you understands) the oceans have been a massive net SINK of CO2 the last 100 years. The oceans have not 'out-gassed' CO2.. they have done the exact opposite... they contain far more CO2 than they used to.. which is why they are far more acidic.

[Sunny and Warm]

you said that the sun has caused warming which has caused the oceans to 'out-gas'

except as the paper you posted shows (and everybody else here except you understands) the oceans have been a massive net SINK of CO2 the last 100 years. The oceans have not 'out-gassed' CO2.. they have done the exact opposite... they contain far more CO2 than they used to.. which is why they are far more acidic.

so now you no longer laugh about outgassing. I trust you believe it is happening. I also see that you now believe temps affect CO2 outgassing based on these papers. The only link left is solar to temps. To be honest, that is my belief so I don't have a paper to share.

[Strongbad]

so now you no longer laugh about outgassing. I trust you believe it is happening. I also see that you now believe temps affect CO2 outgassing based on these papers. The only link left is solar to temps. To be honest, that is my belief so I don't have a paper to share.

I am loving this. Learning more from you today than i have from these forums in a while. Keep up the good work!

[skierinvermont]

so now you no longer laugh about outgassing. I trust you believe it is happening. I also see that you now believe temps affect CO2 outgassing based on these papers. The only link left is solar to temps. To be honest, that is my belief so I don't have a paper to share.

Yes I laugh at the idea of outgassing because the oceans have not outgassed. Yes temperatures affect the CO2 flux.. everybody here has understood that for a long time before you came along.

The oceans contain far more Co2 than they did 100 years ago. If the oceans contained the same amount of CO2 they did 100 years ago, atmospheric CO2 would be approximately ~175ppm higher.

It's easy to calculate what the effect of rising SSTs has been on CO2 solubility using solubility equations learned in any first year college chemistry class or HS AP class. If SSTs had not risen at all atmospheric CO2 would be maybe 5-10ppm lower because the oceans would have absorbed even more CO2. I don't have the numbers in front of me but it is easy to calculate.

[skierinvermont]

I am loving this. Learning more from you today than i have from these forums in a while. Keep up the good work!

keep up the inane cheer-leading

[valkhorn]

I am loving this. Learning more from you today than i have from these forums in a while. Keep up the good work!

Weren't you the one who thought 'hide the decline' referred to global temperatures when it actually referred to tree ring data in the northern hemisphere? Weren't you also the one who thinks global temps are actually cooling?

If so, you're not one to talk.

[Sunny and Warm]

Weren't you the one who thought 'hide the decline' referred to global temperatures when it actually referred to tree ring data in the northern hemisphere? Weren't you also the one who thinks global temps are actually cooling?

If so, you're not one to talk.

well, temps are exactly shooting to the stars either. I wouldn't mention temp direction since they don't conform to the "models".

[valkhorn]

Listen Skip, every paper must have the AGW mantra in it to get published, so why even bring it up. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. The fact is that the paper you reference DOES support my claim, yet you are unable to acknowledge that. Take off the blinders and see the real world.

So you say every paper should support AGW, then the paper you post doesn't support AGW.

I think I'm going to need a citation for this claim that every paper must say they accept AGW. This is the first I heard of it and I'd really like to see your proof of it.

This is almost the same argument from creationists that to get published you have to immediately say evolution is a fact or something. Which, obviously, is not the case. If someone found rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian strata then by all means they could get published. If someone found that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas then yes that would get published too if they had sufficient evidence for it.

I guess in your mind if it disagrees with you and you alone it has to be wrong, therefore if it is a bunch of scientists and a bunch of data that disagrees with you then it has to be some sort of global conspiracy.

I guarantee you that if you found significant research showing that the current warming is due to some other natural process, and you point out what that process is, you will begin to change the consensus. That's how science works. Most scientists are intellectually honest and unlike you are willing to change their mind in light of contradictory evidence. But, it takes a LOT of evidence, and it takes time. This is why it's incorrect to post polls like this, and further incorrect to post blogs or even one or two scientific papers that might agree with you because one paper does not a consensus make. And, often, we find that those papers that do disgree with the consensus end up being incorrect, or mistaken, or have data that no longer works or correlates (see Svensmark). Even the latest idea of GCR has many gaping problems with it, and even the latest CERN experiment is not at all conclusive yet and means very little if anything at all regarding climate change because the seeding is on the nanoscale and is right now insignificant. Even the people running the experiment honestly say that it will be 5-10 years for a conclusion and that conclusion could be either way at this point.

It's amazing how people like you will jump the gun on anything that agrees with you, and you fail to realize that Science just doesn't work like that. Consensus won't change overnight. Even Evolution took about 50 years to be widely accepted in Biology, and AGW has taken about 30 to 40 years.

[valkhorn]

well, temps are exactly shooting to the stars either. I wouldn't mention temp direction since they don't conform to the "models".

What are you talking about? The consensus is not that temps are 'shooting to the stars', but they are significantly getting warmer. Significance means that they are measurable and noticeable.

How can you possibly be against AGW if you seem to know nothing about the actual scientific consensus? It's like you first claim there isn't one, then the consensus is dead wrong, and then you show you don't even know what the consensus is.

[valkhorn]

I am not using ad hominems towards any individual right now. I was enlightened by someone's post and stated my satisfaction.

You are losing the debate when all you can do is insult the other side, while not sourcing most of your dogmatic statements regarding the climate. Look up the term "Megalomaniacs".

Where are your citations when you post?

[Strongbad]

Where are your citations when you post?

Here's one:

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/09/us-co2-regulation-on-hold-indefinitely/

[PhillipS]

for your reading enjoyment. Try to keep up next time.

http://www.greenworl...ic/CO2-flux.htm

http://www.atmos.col...per_revised.pdf

The Colorado State paper says:

Enhanced CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean from a positive

phase of the Southern Annular Mode

http://wattsupwithth...-maybe-slowing/

Appears to be some circles that clearly see CO sequestration and offgassing as a result of ocean temps. Rather than be an alarmist, try to be a realist.

You really should be embarrassed. Your first link is to a loon website that doesn't even have a veneer of plausibility. And your second link, to the University of Colorado, is to a paper that doesn't support your premise in any way. The last sentence of the abstract:

The secular, positive trend in the SAM has led to a reduction in the rate of increase of the uptake of CO2

by the Southern Ocean over the past 50 years.

The oceans are not a net carbon source, they are a net carbon sink. Science has known for decades the there are fluxes of carbon into the oceans and fluxes of carbon out of the oceans, and that the net flow of carbon is into the oceans. (you do understand the concept of net, don't you?) All the paper is saying, and it's not news, is that with warming SSTs the flux of carbon out of the Southern Ocean is increasing. You really should read at least the abstracts of the papers you cite. That might keep you from making a fool of yourself so often. Then again, it might not. Any claim that the measured rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic has to address the fact that we are adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. You can't just wave your hands and say that some unknown carbon sink is removing those gigatons of CO2 and another unknown carbon source is adding gigatons of 'natural' CO2. Puh-leeze!

The paper you cited supports what I said in a post weeks ago - that AGW has the potential to switch the ocean from a carbon sink to a carbon source. If that should happen, it really would be catastrophic. That's reality and, yes, it's alarming.

[valkhorn]

You really should be embarrassed. Your first link is to a loon website that doesn't even have a veneer of plausibility. And your second link, to the University of Colorado, is to a paper that doesn't support your premise in any way. The last sentence of the abstract:

The secular, positive trend in the SAM has led to a reduction in the rate of increase of the uptake of CO2

by the Southern Ocean over the past 50 years.

The oceans are not a net carbon source, they are a net carbon sink. Science has known for decades the there are fluxes of carbon into the oceans and fluxes of carbon out of the oceans, and that the net flow of carbon is into the oceans. (you do understand the concept of net, don't you?) All the paper is saying, and it's not news, is that with warming SSTs the flux of carbon out of the Southern Ocean is increasing. You really should read at least the abstracts of the papers you cite. That might keep you from making a fool of yourself so often. Then again, it might not. Any claim that the measured rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic has to address the fact that we are adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. You can't just wave your hands and say that some unknown carbon sink is removing those gigatons of CO2 and another unknown carbon source is adding gigatons of 'natural' CO2. Puh-leeze!

The paper you cited supports what I said in a post weeks ago - that AGW has the potential to switch the ocean from a carbon sink to a carbon source. If that should happen, it really would be catastrophic. That's reality and, yes, it's alarming.

Well common sense would tell you that oceans aren't a carbon sink because they simply can't be. The only way to get water to hold CO2 is to have it under pressure so the CO2 can't escape. If you uncap a bottle of soda, this is why it goes flat within an hour, and why pressure is released when you open it.

EDIT: I decided to look into this and I wasn't aware of oceans and carbon sequestration. I was a bit wrong and misread what you posted.

DOH!

It's Sunday. I don't like thinking on Sundays.

From WIKI:

Oceans

Another proposed form of carbon sequestration in the ocean is direct injection. In this method, carbon dioxide is pumped directly into the water at depth, and expected to form "lakes" of liquid CO₂ at the bottom. Experiments carried out in moderate to deep waters (350–3600 m) indicate that the liquid CO₂ reacts to form solid CO₂clathrate hydrates, which gradually dissolve in the surrounding waters.

This method, too, has potentially dangerous environmental consequences. The carbon dioxide does react with the water to form carbonic acid, H₂CO₃; however, most (as much as 99%) remains as dissolved molecular CO₂. The equilibrium would no doubt be quite different under the high pressure conditions in the deep ocean. In addition, if deep-sea bacterial methanogens that reduce carbon dioxide were to encounter the carbon dioxide sinks, levels of methane gas may increase, leading to the generation of an even worse greenhouse gas.^[47] The resulting environmental effects on benthic life forms of the bathypelagic, abyssopelagic and hadopelagic zones are unknown. Even though life appears to be rather sparse in the deep ocean basins, energy and chemical effects in these deep basins could have far-reaching implications. Much more work is needed here to define the extent of the potential problems.

Carbon storage in or under oceans may not be compatible with the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.^[48]

An additional method of long-term ocean-based sequestration is to gather crop residue such as corn stalks or excess hay into large weighted bales of biomass and deposit it in the alluvial fan areas of the deep ocean basin. Dropping these residues in alluvial fans would cause the residues to be quickly buried in silt on the sea floor, sequestering the biomass for very long time spans. Alluvial fans exist in all of the world's oceans and seas where river deltas fall off the edge of the continental shelf such as the Mississippi alluvial fan in the gulf of Mexico and the Nile alluvial fan in the Mediterranean Sea. A downside, however, would be an increase in aerobic bacteria growth due to the introduction of biomass, leading to more competition for oxygen resources in the deep sea, similar to the oxygen minimum zone.

Very interesting!

[valkhorn]

Here's one:

http://www.australia...d-indefinitely/

An op-ed is the best you can do? What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

[Sunny and Warm]

What are you talking about? The consensus is not that temps are 'shooting to the stars', but they are significantly getting warmer. Significance means that they are measurable and noticeable.

How can you possibly be against AGW if you seem to know nothing about the actual scientific consensus? It's like you first claim there isn't one, then the consensus is dead wrong, and then you show you don't even know what the consensus is.

concensus is a useless term unless correct. Many examples in history of a lone wolf theory being right and the "concensus" attacking it. Time to drop the word consensus. It really has no use at this point, and is detrimental to your cause. When I see "concensus" I see "funding tool to receive most of the grant money".

[Sunny and Warm]

An op-ed is the best you can do? What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Other than attacking people on here, what is the best you can do? Please try occasionally.

[Sunny and Warm]

Where are your citations when you post?

yes, where are yours? Please stop it with the citation police gig. It is unseemly.

[valkhorn]

yes, where are yours? Please stop it with the citation police gig. It is unseemly.

I've been on this forum a while and I've posted plenty in other posts. So far what I've said is so general that it's just common knowledge. When I need to cite something more specific, I do.

Again, two wrongs don't make a right anyway, so even if I didn't cite anything ever it wouldn't change the fact that a lot of things you cite are from biased sources and a lot of what strongbad does is blind assertion.

[PhillipS]

Hopefully someone sent you a PM pointing out that the 97% number is bunk. Stop embarrassing yourself.

And then you go on to show the standard TSI chart, as if anyone on either side believes that's the whole solar story. We are in 2011 fyi.

Here is the Skeptical Science article on the criticism of the Oreskes paper, the source of my 97% consensus claim. As you'll see if you read the article, Benny Peiser, who claimed to have rebutted the paper, later retracted his claim. You claim it's bunk - come forward with evidence of your claim.

As for your second sentence - do you not understand the math behind a running average? The chart I posted was clearly labeled as showing 11-year averages. so the most recent point on the graph would be 2006, the mid-point of the 11 year period 2001 - 2011. This is not college math, this is grade school arithmetic. Here is a plot with the same 11-year averages and the annual data, too,but don't have kittens becuase it only goes through 2010 (I'm not about to waste more time creating a fresh one you'll just deny):

Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

If you're representative of today's youth, they'll have to start printing instructions on toilet paper. Sheesh!

[Sunny and Warm]

You really should be embarrassed. Your first link is to a loon website that doesn't even have a veneer of plausibility. And your second link, to the University of Colorado, is to a paper that doesn't support your premise in any way. The last sentence of the abstract:

The secular, positive trend in the SAM has led to a reduction in the rate of increase of the uptake of CO2

by the Southern Ocean over the past 50 years.

The oceans are not a net carbon source, they are a net carbon sink. Science has known for decades the there are fluxes of carbon into the oceans and fluxes of carbon out of the oceans, and that the net flow of carbon is into the oceans. (you do understand the concept of net, don't you?) All the paper is saying, and it's not news, is that with warming SSTs the flux of carbon out of the Southern Ocean is increasing. You really should read at least the abstracts of the papers you cite. That might keep you from making a fool of yourself so often. Then again, it might not. Any claim that the measured rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic has to address the fact that we are adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. You can't just wave your hands and say that some unknown carbon sink is removing those gigatons of CO2 and another unknown carbon source is adding gigatons of 'natural' CO2. Puh-leeze!

The paper you cited supports what I said in a post weeks ago - that AGW has the potential to switch the ocean from a carbon sink to a carbon source. If that should happen, it really would be catastrophic. That's reality and, yes, it's alarming.

boy oh boy, doesn't any alarmist have reading skills. I'm talking about temp vs CO2 causality. NOT that the ocean is or is not a carbon sink. Read people.