Republican Congressman Says God Will 'Take Care Of' Climate Change

How does limestone negate the science of climate change? You don't think the world's scientists know about carbon sinks? The whole climate change problem is that we are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than is coming out of it through natural processes. That's why atmospheric CO2 levels are rising rather than falling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess for now, you can (for your biased argument!) presume that it is spurious bullshit (SBS). Those scientists who are more more knowledgeable know that it is NOT SBS! If I had the available time, I could perform comparative calculations for the total earth-wide volume of limestone formations (and related sequestors of CO2) versus the total volume of rainforest acreage, assuming average carbon contents of both sequestor media. (Sigh!) Alas, I do not have that required amount of time (to make the comparative calculations). Perhaps that (calculation) would make for an interesting MS or Ph.D. research thesis/dissertation.

So . . . . to reiterate my position . . . . . and for YOUR biased purposes, just presume my statement is SBS, and continue to argue-away with no factual evidence to support or deny YOUR position.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IMO, a temporary condition (one might say - a "climate change" . . . . and there have been many such, as demonstrated by historical data!!) . . . . . Not to worry (IMO), Nature will provide the necessary corrective (equilibrium) actions.

Joe said: " . . . . the whole climate change problem is we are . . . ." . . .. NOT , IMO!! Historical long range geologic/ice core data do not support your claim!!

Recommended reading (Google it): The Vostok Ice Core Data

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course - because we're special.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well you see Karen, this is about science. It's not about your beliefs or your opinions. Again, you seriously don't think climate scientists don't know about carbon sinks? Your opinions and beliefs don't negate the science of climate change.

The problem is CO2 levels are rising, and rising significantly along with global temperatures. We are pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than is being drained through natural processes. That's not sustainable. It's really not that difficult. Glaciers around the world aren't melting because the world is getting colder.

 

You must feel you are in a living anthropology exhibit. I can't say I know anybody like that in London. Though we do sometimes get Jehovah's Witnesses at the door.

 

Ans: It doesn't "negate" climate change, Joe, it is simply a factor (one of MANY!). No scientist of any objective mete denies "CLIMATE CHANGE", but many challenge the subjective conclusion that humans are the primary culprit. I would like to see some more comprehensive, objective, and less-biased investigations. A simple request, I think (IMO!).

Most current 'models' (that I have reviewed) do not adequately consider its (limestone and other equilibrium 'sink' processes) importance in the TOTAL scheme - those models tend to, rather, accentuate the 'greedy, mean-old' humans' (my text) influence. Past geologic data do not confirm that presumption - recent data (100-150 years) are too few to compare to the extensive history of climate change over the longer-term scenario (most of which happened prior to even the appearance of humans on earth and certainly their industrial activity!). It is much easier to subjectively blame humans than to conduct meaningful and realistic objective investigations, IMO of course! Climate change IS REAL , but blaming same on human activity is a bit ego-centric, perhaps a delusion of grandeur, and certainly premature, IMO, of course!.

 

If that was true, then those processes would be even now using up the available CO2 and slowing down the rise in CO2 concentrations.

They are not.

It's not affected AT ALL. We are not, and will never, create carbon. We are just releasing it from where it has been buried for millions of years.

Absolutely. For example, if climate change renders humanity extinct, then the Earth will return to its natural state. In other words, Earth will "adapt, improvise and overcome" - you just won't like how that happens.

Yep. And they are insufficient.

 

Please heed my suggestion regarding the Vostok Ice Core Data. If you cannot find the link via Google, let me know and I'll provide same. The data demonstrate that YES, there is a positive correlation among CO2 levels and atmospheric warming . . .. BUT (my emphases). . . . the rise in CO2 levels trend is that it (CO2 rise) FOLLOWS atmospheric temperature rise, not the other way around! . . . AND . . . that hiatus (between CO2 rise and temperature rise) is approximately 1000 years! An objective scientist might conclude from this (Vostok) data that the rise in CO2 is perhaps a PRODUCT of an immediately (more or less, geologically) prior tempreature rise.

 

Correct!

There are a great many who are happy to take money from coal and oil companies to claim just that. (Just as they took money from tobacco companies in the 1950's to claim that smoking was good for you.)

See above.

There are thousands. The journal Nature is a good academic reference; peer-reviewed, unbiased and objective. Here is one:
http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538

Then take a look at IPCC models. They do indeed consider carbon sequestration by limestone accretion. Unfortunately, the primary method by which limestone is created is the growth (and then death) of corals and molluscs - and when CO2 rises, the oceans acidify and slow down the growth of those very corals.

Like I said, Nature is a good objective source of information.

Careful there! You will be branded a crybaby liberal for such claims by the right wing!

I'd say it's smart, and is based on the best information we have to date. It is certainly not the first time humanity has done something dumb and damaged the entire planet. Remember CFC's?

 

Yes! Up until now, no one has gone into the Earth and intentionally released CO2 as we are doing - so we have never seen CO2 lead the rise before. In years past, it was simply an amplification of existing warming, due to (for example) increased solar output. So the sequence was: sun gets warmer, ground heats up, permafrost melts, CO2 is released, ground heats up faster. Now the sequence is: we release lots of CO2, ground heats up, permafrost melts, more CO2 is released, ground heats up faster.

That is correct; in previous examples the warming was the cause of increased CO2 levels. Today we are the cause; that is provable via simple math (i.e. gigatons of carbon burned results in gigatons more CO2 in the atmosphere, which increases concentrations accordingly.)

 

1. NO (IMO) . . . . different processes proceed at different rates. Response times are not the same! Ex: Comparer dissolution and predipitation - pouring acidified water on limestone (CaCO3) will evolve CO2 faster than a reverse reaction of CO2 saturated water will precipitate CaCO3 - (try the experiment!). Certainly, dissolution of CaCO3 (limestone), slowly releases CO2 and the reverse reaction (again slowly) precipitates limestone. The key word is 's-l-o-w-l-y' - as are 'most' natural processes - some natural processes occur MUCH faster!. The issue is whether we humans,with our demonstrated greedy consumptive proclivity are significantly affecting climatic attributes of our atmospheric environment. Proponents of antrhopogenic climate change say yes. I say 'maybe' . . . . but perhaps that conclusion is "falsifiable", so let's examine the entire 'system' and its interactions by conducting more-complete, non-biased objective investigations.

2. I agree, we are not now, and never will, 'create' carbon (disallowing neutron bombardment) . . . .BUT we (and Nature!!) CAN combine C + 1/2 O2+ Ca and form LIMESTONE!, and visa versa. We (and Nature) can also experimentally demonstrate the phenomenon known as 'carbonate compensation' wherein CaCO3 dissolution (forming dissolved CO2 in deep ocean environments) is observed.

3. If that happens (extinction) none of these arguments will matter. My POINT IS that investigations of "climate change" should examine the complete system of chemical interactions that occur and NOT subjectively bias and politicize investigations to (perhaps erroneously, perhaps not!) assign observed physical attributes (e.g., climate change) to human behavior. BTW: It is NOT a foregone conclusion - by objective scientists, IMO - that climate change WILL render humanity extinct. IMO, there are many naturally-ocurring mechanisms and processes that contribute to 'climate change' . . . . human behavior (beneficial or detrimental manipulation) of some processes in certainly a consideration, but it is scientifically remiss to subjectively (and prematurely) assign 'climate change' (either warming OR cooling) to human behavioral attributes. Most of the climate models I have reviewed (a fair number!) disregard or minimalize natural impacts (in either direction) from natural mechanisms/processes. Perhaps some proponents (of anthropogenic climate change) are of the opinion that it is far-easier to influence human behavior than it is is to investigate the influence of natural phenomena - IMO, of course!)

4. I disagree. We (humans) do NOT YET know the sufficiency of reactive natural processes in influencing/re-directing climate change trends. Yes, very likely natural processes operate sufficiently slowly to create a response hiatus, but we do not yet know that such hiatuses will significantly affect (possiblly) short-term climate change trends, IMO, of course!

 

You misconstrued my responses to meet your ends, IMO! Typical!
Just like there were 'thousands' of scientists comprising the recent 'Consensus' on climate change (NOT . . . look at the polling stats!)
Only biogenic limestones (e.g., reefs) accrete. Most limestones chemically precipitate in shallow, warm ocean environments.
Nature is mostly objective, except when it comes to subjective bias of participants (observers) . . . . . and UFOs! (HAHA!)
I HAVE looked at several IPCC Models. Some are more complete (and more objective) than others. Most assume pre-conceived biases - 'garbage in, garbage out'!
Then you would be mistaken. I am better described as a crybaby independent. But at least I AM an objective scientist (IMO!)
Perhaps you might then conclude that God also did something dumb and damaged the entire planet - by creating us CO2 exhalers!!
IMO, some more liberal proponents of anthropogenic climate change would likely be very happy if the human race suddenly disappeared - life would then be SO great! (HAHA!)

 

Agreed. But it's not like it's going to suddenly accelerate over today's speeds, which are determined by relative percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. (In other words, when CO2 levels increase so will carbonate formation - but in no case will it increase faster than Co2 concentrations do.)

Also agree. And we can create oil, and methane, and coal. And as long as we release new CO2 SLOWLY those mechanisms can handle the increased CO2. It's just that we are releasing it too fast.

Agreed. We should instead rely on the scientific studies being done across the planet - which agree that humans are the primary (not the only, but the primary) cause of warming.

Indeed, I do not know of any study that guarantee that climate change will lead to human extinction. It is merely the end result of "the planet will always correct itself somehow!" line of thinking (which is, IMO, false.)

Correct. But what we do know - for sure - is that CO2 levels are rising, and that therefore such mechanisms are insufficient to keep it from rising.

 

There are thousands of scientists comprising the recent consensus on climate change. Four separate metastudies have verified that.

Which preconceptions do they include?

They are PRECISELY the sort that right wingers like to brand crybaby liberals.

Some might indeed. I do not.

Of course. And some more conservative deniers would be very happy if someone could prove that (say) an alien invasion was creating all that new CO2 just to mess with us. Because then they would bear no responsibility for anything that happened as a result of such CO2 releases - and their fossil fuel portfolios would prosper. (Well, other than the whole alien invasion thing.)

Follow the money.

 

You mean, like . . . . IPCC (and related) research $$??

 

That's not true. They have - all of them - given careful and thorough (and ongoing) attention, in theory and in research, to all the known carbon sinks, in describing AGW and the likely future of it.

That's not true either.
You don't seem to have actually "reviewed" a single climate model.

Of course not. It's just an increasing risk, as described by AGW researchers. How big a risk of that would a sane person be willing to run?

You don't appear to be able to reason from evidence - a key attribute of the scientists I have had dealings with. You have no intuitive sense of scale - you confuse geological time scales with human ones - again, more common in nonscientists, especially Fundies. And you post falsehoods, you get simple everyday facts wrong that most scientists are familiar with. And you post stuff most frequently encountered in Christian Fundie proselytizing, in style and substance - which is also the primary source of people pretending to have a scientific background they do not have, on this forum. So in the absence any persuasive evidence otherwise, let's just assume you aren't actually a scientist of any kind. It's ok - lots of people here are not scientists.

 

Sorry Iceaura . . . . but I do NOT confuse scales . . . . I attempt to COMPARE them! AGW folks can't seem to do that, IMO!! BTW #1: "persuasive evidence" ? HAHA!, "You have evidently confused me with someone who actually cares about your concerns regarding my qualifications" . . . . Get a life and quite trolling! . . . BTW #2: I have graduate and post-graduate credentials and peer-reviewed publications . . . . . do YOU?

 

But ... but Karen, It HAS to be a man made problem! HAS to be!
Because if it isn't then we humans haven't a hope in hell...
It is blatantly obvious to most that climate change IS occurring at a tremendous rate, well beyond what could be described as naturally and typically inspired. There is little doubt that we as a race are in trouble. The question though of blame is one more about minimizing the fear of "not being in control" so to claim humans as responsible means that we humans may be able to rectify the situation. With out this hope, false or other wise our extinction as a race is even more certain.

 

Yes. Research that objectively examines the complete system of chemical interactions that occurs is expensive. A few posts ago you supported such research.

(Such funding, of course, is insignificant to the fossil fuel profits put at risk by such research.)