Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..

[jc456]

No. Sometimes the science is settled.

not in science, it's never settled.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

science is never settled but being told it's a climate hoax and there's no warming

 

[ding]

science is never settled but being told it's a climate hoax and there's no warming

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcings, so why do you assume the recent warming trend is due to CO2?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcings, so why do you assume the recent warming trend is due to CO2?

Great point... Stomata proxies are fairly short duration periods. They show rapid rises and declines in temperature and CO2 levels. They do not show correlation. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 drives nothing.

Figure 6. CO2 from plant stomata: Northern Sweden (Finsinger et al., 2009), Northern Spain (Garcia-Amorena, 2008), Southern Sweden (Jessen, 2005), Washington State USA (Kouwenberg, 2004), Netherlands (Wagner et al., 1999), Denmark (Wagner et al., 2002). SOURCE

 

[Crick]

There are other sources with other conclusions:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247

Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels - Carbon Brief

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is now reaching levels 50% higher than when humanity began large-scale burning of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution.

www.carbonbrief.org

And then there's a study on precisely this question:
Abstract
The atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by about 20 ppm from 6000 BCE to the pre-industrial period (1850 CE). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain mechanisms of this CO2 growth based on either ocean or land carbon sources. Here, we apply the Earth system model MPI-ESM-LR for two transient simulations of climate and carbon cycle dynamics during this period. In the first simulation, atmospheric CO2 is prescribed following ice-core CO2 data. In response to the growing atmospheric CO2 concentration, land carbon storage increases until 2000 BCE, stagnates afterwards, and decreases from 1 CE, while the ocean continuously takes CO2 out of the atmosphere after 4000 BCE. This leads to a missing source of 166 Pg of carbon in the ocean–land–atmosphere system by the end of the simulation. In the second experiment, we applied a CO2 nudging technique using surface alkalinity forcing to follow the reconstructed CO2 concentration while keeping the carbon cycle interactive. In that case the ocean is a source of CO2 from 6000 to 2000 BCE due to a decrease in the surface ocean alkalinity. In the prescribed CO2 simulation, surface alkalinity declines as well. However, it is not sufficient to turn the ocean into a CO2 source. The carbonate ion concentration in the deep Atlantic decreases in both the prescribed and the interactive CO2 simulations, while the magnitude of the decrease in the prescribed CO2 experiment is underestimated in comparison with available proxies. As the land serves as a carbon sink until 2000 BCE due to natural carbon cycle processes in both experiments, the missing source of carbon for land and atmosphere can only be attributed to the ocean. Within our model framework, an additional mechanism, such as surface alkalinity decrease, for example due to unaccounted for carbonate accumulation processes on shelves, is required for consistency with ice-core CO2 data. Consequently, our simulations support the hypothesis that the ocean was a source of CO2 until the late Holocene when anthropogenic CO2 sources started to affect atmospheric CO2.

PgC is pegagrams carbon (10^15 grams, 10^12 kg)

What was the source of the atmospheric CO2 increase during the Holocene?

Abstract. The atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by about 20 ppm from 6000 BCE to the pre-industrial period (1850 CE). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain mechanisms of this CO2 growth based on either ocean or land carbon sources. Here, we apply the Earth system model...

bg.copernicus.org

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are other sources with other conclusions:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247

View attachment 742921

Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 now hitting 50% higher than pre-industrial levels - Carbon Brief

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is now reaching levels 50% higher than when humanity began large-scale burning of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution.

www.carbonbrief.org

And then there's a study on precisely this question:
Abstract
The atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by about 20 ppm from 6000 BCE to the pre-industrial period (1850 CE). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain mechanisms of this CO2 growth based on either ocean or land carbon sources. Here, we apply the Earth system model MPI-ESM-LR for two transient simulations of climate and carbon cycle dynamics during this period. In the first simulation, atmospheric CO2 is prescribed following ice-core CO2 data. In response to the growing atmospheric CO2 concentration, land carbon storage increases until 2000 BCE, stagnates afterwards, and decreases from 1 CE, while the ocean continuously takes CO2 out of the atmosphere after 4000 BCE. This leads to a missing source of 166 Pg of carbon in the ocean–land–atmosphere system by the end of the simulation. In the second experiment, we applied a CO2 nudging technique using surface alkalinity forcing to follow the reconstructed CO2 concentration while keeping the carbon cycle interactive. In that case the ocean is a source of CO2 from 6000 to 2000 BCE due to a decrease in the surface ocean alkalinity. In the prescribed CO2 simulation, surface alkalinity declines as well. However, it is not sufficient to turn the ocean into a CO2 source. The carbonate ion concentration in the deep Atlantic decreases in both the prescribed and the interactive CO2 simulations, while the magnitude of the decrease in the prescribed CO2 experiment is underestimated in comparison with available proxies. As the land serves as a carbon sink until 2000 BCE due to natural carbon cycle processes in both experiments, the missing source of carbon for land and atmosphere can only be attributed to the ocean. Within our model framework, an additional mechanism, such as surface alkalinity decrease, for example due to unaccounted for carbonate accumulation processes on shelves, is required for consistency with ice-core CO2 data. Consequently, our simulations support the hypothesis that the ocean was a source of CO2 until the late Holocene when anthropogenic CO2 sources started to affect atmospheric CO2.
View attachment 742922
PgC is pegagrams carbon (10^15 grams, 10^12 kg)

What was the source of the atmospheric CO2 increase during the Holocene?

Abstract. The atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by about 20 ppm from 6000 BCE to the pre-industrial period (1850 CE). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain mechanisms of this CO2 growth based on either ocean or land carbon sources. Here, we apply the Earth system model...

bg.copernicus.org

CO2's impact is IRRELEVANT. It has no magical powers in our atmosphere. The Sun/Ocean dynamo is the control. IT is the reason that we have glaciated with levels above 7,000ppm. The earth's temperature has NEVER "run-away" even at those levels and has never gone outside the 12-15 deg C boundaries in 4.5 billion years. The paleo records show how irrelevant CO2 is to the earth's energy budget.



We expected 2.1 Deg C of rise and after all other active drivers were accounted for, what was left, 0.024 deg C is all it can muster. The margin of error is +/-0.07 deg C. This means that the potential warming that CO2 is capable of is Statistically ZERO.

 

[mamooth]

not in science, it's never settled.

It's true. The existence of gravity is still in question, as is the round earth theory, and the germ theory of disease.

And that's why the "science is never settled" dweebs are such obvious dumbasses.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's true. The existence of gravity is still in question, as is the round earth theory, and the germ theory of disease.

And that's why the "science is never settled" dweebs are such obvious dumbasses.

And yet here you are... You do it all the time... Go figure...

 

[mamooth]

CO2's impact is IRRELEVANT. It has no magical powers in our atmosphere.

And that really makes you look bad. You can only invoke magic, while we use basic physics.

Let's look at one easy example. How did earth melt out of the Snowball Earth phase?

Snowball Earth went though hundreds of Milankovitch cycles without melting, so it couldn't have been orbital factors.

So what was it?

Mainstream science has no problem explaining it. It will be hilarious to see what sort of magic you invoke.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And that really makes you look bad. You can only invoke magic, while we use basic physics.

Let's look at one easy example. How did earth melt out of the Snowball Earth phase?

Snowball Earth went though hundreds of Milankovitch cycles without melting, so it couldn't have been orbital factors.

So what was it?

Mainstream science has no problem explaining it. It will be hilarious to see what sort of magic you invoke.

It's not magic... ITs called science. I read your posts on another political forum and you are just as irrelevant there as you are here. I have taken the time to actually look into the Historical Climate Record. I have adjusted for the well-known and documented urban heat island and land use changes. These are active drivers which change global averages due to the proximity of the recording stations.

You keep touting on one side of the equation and never address the other.

Please feel free to show me where CO2 is more energetic in our atmosphere.

 

[mamooth]

It's not magic...

Yeah, yeah, you're dodging with a personal attack. Same old same old.

Now answer the question.

Why did Snowball Earth melt?

Please feel free to show me where CO2 is more energetic in our atmosphere.

Why do you think CO2 is "more energetic in our atmosphere"?

What does that even mean?

It's your crazy theory, so it's up to you to explain it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And that really makes you look bad. You can only invoke magic, while we use basic physics.

Yeah, yeah, you're dodging with a personal attack. Same old same old.

Now answer the question.

Why did Snowball Earth melt?


Why do you think CO2 is "more energetic in our atmosphere"?

What does that even mean?

It's your crazy theory, so it's up to you to explain it.

I love it... You claim to be a Ph.D in the other forum. You don't have the slightest clue about the physics of this.
Tell me. How will the Shift from this region of 5% of the Down Welling Solar Radiation in the 380nm to 540nm band of the suns output affect the oceans?

I will even give you the breakdown of what energy can penetrate our oceans to depth to help you..




Source: Practical Handbook of Marine Science

Once you're done with DWSR lets get into Long Wave InfraRed (LWIR) and how deep it can penetrate at 12-16um..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why did Snowball Earth melt?

Very simple... The suns output became strong enough to counteract the cold. Now answer my specific question in my last post.

 

[jc456]

It's true. The existence of gravity is still in question, as is the round earth theory, and the germ theory of disease.

And that's why the "science is never settled" dweebs are such obvious dumbasses.

Tell us how it works then?

 

[mamooth]

I love it... You claim to be a Ph.D in the other forum.

Understood. You're a pathological liar. That's a statement of fact, not an opinion.

Since it's a given that you will lie outright in response to anyone saying anything, why should anyone talk to you? Why shouldn't they metaphorically spit on the sidewalk and walk away?

Now, speaking about phony claims of Ph.Ds, you claimed to be gainfully employed as an adult in the 1970s.

Then you claimed to be in a Ph.D program in the 2010s.

Can you tell us which university allowed someone whose age was in their 60's with no previous science experience to enroll in an atmospheric physics Ph.D program?

My point? You're a really inept fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Very simple... The suns output became strong enough to counteract the cold. Now answer my specific question in my last post.

There wasn't just one snowball earth phase, so that answer is contradicted by reality.

Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our USMB Home Game.

 

[mamooth]

How will the Shift from this region of 5% of the Down Welling Solar Radiation in the 380nm to 540nm band of the suns output affect the oceans?

In exactly the same way the increased polarization of the gamma tachyon flux from the sun will affect it.

See? I can make up technobabble too.

Tell us more about this solar shift. What are you sources for it? Why hasn't anyone else noticed it?

And try to remember you can only gaslight your fellow cult imbeciles. Everyone else knows you're just making stupid stuff up.

 

[ding]

Why did Snowball Earth melt?

A more relevant and pertinent question for today is why did earth transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

 

[ding]

Why did Snowball Earth melt?

Without having looked into I would assume the simplest explanation is that it returned naturally to the temperature it was before the glaciation occurred. In other words it was the glacial that was the anomaly not the returning to what it was before glaciation.

But the reason I never looked into it is because it's not relevant to today because land mass distribution and ocean circulation - which is the real driver of the earth's climate - was totally different than today.

Which is not true about the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet because that landmass distribution and ocean circulation system is similar to the current landmass distribution and ocean circulation system.

What do you think IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT does that sound about right to you?

 

[mamooth]

Without having looked into I would assume the simplest explanation is that it returned naturally to the temperature it was before the glaciation occurred. In other words it was the glacial that was the anomaly not the returning to what it was before glaciation.

That's invoking unknown magic, so it falls under the category of a religious belief instead of science.

Results have causes. Things don't just "return to the way they were" without a cause. What was the cause?