Plasma dør IKKE! LÆS...(HDguru.com)

Firebird skrev: Jeg har jo forlængst indrømmet at jeg huskede forkert med hensyn til årstallene til Pinatubo. Det jeg skrev med vulkanerne, var selvfølgelig ikke rigtigt. Jeg skulle have skrevet: Vulkanerne HAR udledt meget større mængder CO2 end VI har. Det kan de sagtens finde på igen.

Det har nu ikke været årstallene, jeg har langt meget vægt på, men det var påstanden om, at "Pinatubo var MEGET aktiv" før det store udbrud samt specielt den generelle påstand om, at "vulkaner på vores planet udleder meget større mængder CO2 end vi gør".

Firebird skrev: Det kulstof som rygende vulkaner udleder, bliver omdannet til CO2 i atmosfæren. Der bliver konstant dannet NYT CO2 som ikke er UDLEDNING.

Det jeg har læst (hvor du har fået links) er, at vulkaner generelt er ganske ubetydelige for den globale opvarmning og har været det i mange år.  

Hvis vi ikke er blevet enige nu, så bliver vi det nok ikke lige en af de nærmeste dage .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177886/Creat ures-living-violent-undersea-volcano-climate-change-survival -clue.html

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/184144-Creatures-Living-on -Violent-Undersea-Volcano-Give-Climate-Change-Survival-Clue

Comment: This article is a good example of how the media can slip in their subtle suggestions supporting the anthropogenic global warming agenda. Specifically the implication that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to the acidified oceans and the global killing of oceanic species.

And here it is, article quote:

Sea water is slightly alkaline, but the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been mirrored by an increase of CO2 dissolving in the oceans and forming carbonic acid.

Ocean acidification is a serious concern because it can be fatal to some fish eggs and larvae and interferes with the formation of shells.

Remember the recent scaremongering that the Great Barrier Reef was dying due to global warming and CO2. Well it wasn't. Global warming and CO2 had nothing to do with it. See: Australian scientists celebrate Great Barrier Reef comeback.

There are many good, credible sources for studies on ocean acidification and CO2 / carbonate balance in the world's oceans.

Concerning point one, the human production of CO2 per year is 0.014% of the amount of carbon already in the oceans. Part of the carbon which enters the oceans is converted into neutral cell mass; and this is one of the reasons why there is no acid problem. Biology converts CO2 into neutral cell mass.

Another reason why the acid scare is a fraud is because the CO2 levels in the atmosphere always fluctuate during ice age cycles, and the cycle is exactly the same now as it was during the previous ice age. There is nothing unusual about it. Biology easily adapts to such variations.

Physiology totally controls pH within cells. This means that the pH of ocean water has no relationship to the pH within the cells, where calcium carbonate shells are created. Survival of ancient coral reefs is a different matter, but creating them through living cells is a not a pH problem in the oceans. pH will affect the algae which are exploited by corals, but as one species leaves, another species which is more adapted to lower pH enters.

One of the most difficult questions to study in biology is how cells control their internal pH. It's difficult to study, because every chemical reaction in a cell influences pH. Evolution takes into account the total effects and produces a result which is favorable to survival. As a result, acid comes and goes in biological cells with no indication of where from or where to. All biologists can do is observe the end result. And biologists observe total control over extremes in pH in biological systems. For the frauds to claim that a small fraction of a pH change in the ocean cannot be handled by corals is a contrivance in conflict with biological principles.

Propagandists claim carbon dioxide is an acid, and acid destroys carbonate in the ocean, while corals require carbonate. But CO2 isn't just an acid; it is in equilibrium with carbonate. This means more CO2 entering the oceans results in more carbonate, not less.

There are two scientific frauds involved. One is to view CO2 only as an acid, as if it were equivalent to hydrochloric acid, while ignoring its equilibrium with carbonate. The other fraud is to ignore the huge buffering capacity of the oceans, which results in no detectable acidity from CO2 entering the oceans.

When adding up the absence of increased acidity with the equilibrium between CO2 and carbonate, the net result is that CO2 is increasing the carbonate which corals need, not decreasing it.

A new study and web site explains the oceanography of carbon dioxide and shows the errors of the propagandists who claim that increased CO2 in the oceans will make the oceans more acidic and destroy coral reefs. Near the surface of the oceans, increased photosynthesis creates alkalinity rather than acidity. There is in fact a shortage of acid near the surface for the promotion of photosynthesis. The decay which creates acidity occurs 1-2 kilometers down, which is way below the level of coral reefs.

This subject is explained by Dr. J. Floor Anthoni here:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/184144-Creatures-Living-on -Violent-Undersea-Volcano-Give-Climate-Change-Survival-Clue

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arcti c-volcano.html

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/undersea_eruptions_ near_tonga.html

http://laueruptions.blogspot.com/2009/05/eruption.html

http://nov55.com/acd.html

Ikke mere herfra.

Redigeret af Firebird - 25-Maj-2009 kl. 06:08

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/blogs/klimabloggen/hvad_er_vi denskab

clausevitz!

Mange tak for linket.

Jeg vil anbefale dig, at læse de forskellige kommentarer. Specielt den nederste.  Her er noget fra den.

En række førende forskere har formuleret kritikpunkter at dele af IPCCs arbejde, det ignorerer C. Bugge haarder og Øjvind Lidegaard. Det er dumt, da man altid skal høre på argumenter fra begge sider i en sag. Et par enkelte punkter: *IPCCs egen ekspertreviewer, Madhav Khandekar med mere end 100 afhandlinger bag sig siger, at IPCCs forfattere havde ignoreret alle hans kommentarer og forslag til større ændringer i 1. udgave af seneste rapport eller havde gidet at kommunikere direkte. "Dette er ikke en acceptabel videnskabelige review-proces.", udtaler Khandekar. --- *Dr. Richard Courtney er ekspert reviewer for IPCC, udtaler: "Til dato er der ingen overbevisende dokumentation for AGW (menneskeskabte globale opvarmning) er blevet opdaget. Og de seneste globale klima opførsel ikke er i overensstemmelse med AGW model forudsigelser. " ------ *Dr. David Wojick - en af IPCCs ekspertreviewere siger: "Rent faktisk kan man ikke forklare, at gåden om at kun Jordens overflade bliver opvarmet, men ikke atmosfæren. Drivhusgas-hypotesen kan ikke forklare dette. Det offentlige er ikke tjent med denne konstante trommeslag af falske alarmer fra manipulerede computermodeller." -- D*r. Kiminori Itoh, ekspert reviewer siger at "det er den største videnskabelige skandale i historien at man har prisbelønnet urigtige målinger som dokumenteret af Antony Watts. (Et par smagsprøver er vist andet sted:) *A. Mangihi udtaler, at IPCCs rekonstruktion af paleoklimatiske data er forkerte. -- *Mörner hudflettes af C. Bugge for at have fundet at vandstanden ved Malidiverne ikke stiger, men falder.

Desuden... Er det ikke interessant, at man finder flere og flere undersøiske vulkaner? Aktive undersøiske vulkaner? Også i Arktiske egne? Varmer de vandet op? Hvad tror du? Gør de vandet koldere med deres varmeudledning? Nå, de har ingen betydning? Virkelig?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arcti c-volcano.html

Flotte billeder?

http://laueruptions.blogspot.com/2009/05/we-thought-wed-seen -it-all.html

Gad vide hvor mange flere der undersøiske vulkaner der er i verdenshavene? Gad vide, hvor meget varme de udleder? Start med at undersøge området imellem Australien og Indien. Det ville være en start, men der er ikke mange penge til den slags forskning. Der er heller ikke mange penge til at forske i de arktiske egne. Slet ikke når det gælder undersøiske vulkaner. Sørgeligt. 

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the “fountains” of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

“Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process,” according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.
They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. “Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water,” says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.

Again, why is it not plausible that the Arctic Melt is actually the result of volcanic activity that rivals that which buried Pompeii? Can the IPCC actually claim this historic level of volcanic activity is having negligible impact on Arctic Ice? Gimme a break.

Redigeret af Firebird - 26-Maj-2009 kl. 00:07

Clausevitz!

Spiller det en rolle? Kan det ikke være ligemeget, hvem der mener hvad? Det afgørende må vel være beviser som der ikke er blevet manipuleret med i computerprogrammer? Nu mangler vi lige at du benægter, at undersøiske vulkaner har en effekt på vores klima.

http://www.dr.dk/DR2/VidenOm/Ugens+Viden/Maj/20070511100931. htm

Har Per A. Hansen løjet om noget?

Nå? Der er stor forskel på meninger og beviser. Ellers kunne man jo bare tro blindt på folk.

Det globale klima? Det lokale klima er det globale klima. Det lokale klima? Klimaet i Danmark, Canada, Brasilien, Australien, Japan, Rusland, Indien, Panama, Alaska, Californien, Mali, Ægyten, Geogien, Kina, Mongoliet, Indonesien osv... Det globale klima? Nordpolen, sydpolen, verdenshavene, solen, månen, El Nino, La Nina..., osv... bortset fra vulkaner, de spiller ingen rolle. Det er der jo ingen beviser for. Slet ikke undersøiske vulkaner. Dem bagatelliserer man bare. Bare luk øjnene. Smart.

Redigeret af Firebird - 26-Maj-2009 kl. 01:56

clausewitz skrev: Firebird skrev: Har Per A. Hansen løjet om noget? Jeg har ikke brugt tid på at vurdere hans indlæg. De links, han har valgt i hans indlæg, er da ikke brugbare til det. Der er kommet et svar til hans kommentar: "Der er ikke en eneste af dine fremdragne skeptikere, som kommer med blot antydningen af en kvalificeret alternativ hypotese til de klimaændringer vi iagttager. På den baggrund forekommer det en anelse anstrengt, krampagtigt at blive ved med at benægte de fundamentale forhold vedrørende AGW, og de faktorer som afstedkommer dem." Firebird skrev: Nå? Der er stor forskel på meninger og beviser. Ellers kunne man jo bare tro blindt på folk. Er vi ikke enig her - at der er stor forskel på meninger og beviser?!   Firebird skrev:   Det globale klima? Det lokale klima er det globale klima. Det lokale klima? Klimaet i Danmark, Canada, Brasilien, Australien, Japan, Rusland, Indien, Panama, Alaska, Californien, Mali, Ægyten, Geogien, Kina, Mongoliet, Indonesien osv... Det globale klima? Nordpolen, sydpolen, verdenshavene, solen, månen, El Nino, La Nina..., osv... bortset fra vulkaner, de spiller ingen rolle. Det er der jo ingen beviser for. Slet ikke undersøiske vulkaner. Dem bagatelliserer man bare. Bare luk øjnene. Smart.  Var vi ikke enige om, at det var det Globale Klima vi diskuterede. Du har jo tidl. skrevet: Firebird skrev: Bare fordi temperaturer stiger nogle steder det ene år, er det ikke ensbetydende med at temperaturerne ikke falder andre steder samtidigt. Da jeg henviste til denne: http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/klimaudviklingen_og_solaktiviteten_lae gger_afstand_til_hinanden

Det viser jo bare at man slet ikke tager højde for havstrømmene. Nogensinde hørt om f.eks golfstrømmen? Hov. Det er jo bare én af mange mægtige havstrømme. Hov. Den blå planet!  Hvad sker der når vand som er blevet kogt af undersøiske vulkaner bliver blandet med koldt vand via havstrømmene? Hvad med fordampningen fra verdenshavene?

Hov. Så er der lige de varme vinde. Men de betyder heller ikke noget.

Bliver vores planet måske også varmet op indefra? Varme fra jordens indre?

Hvad var det nu lige jeg skrev tidligere? Noget med at tal ikke altid fortæller sandheden?  Fortæller de offentlige myndigheder sandheden om CO2?

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#cca

Ocean acidification

Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life?

By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2007)
www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention? What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.  Scientists' overwhelming consensus about ocean acidification is deeply disturbing, as if there exists no doubt; as if there are no uncertainties; as if we know it all. It is equally worrisome that this chapter is the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical.

The bit missing at the beginning is that CO2 (atmosphere) <=> CO2 (sea water) or in other words, that the carbondioxide in the air is in balance with that in the surface water.

If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises, then more of it will dissolve in the water, working all the way through the chemical reactions, to an increase in acidity and an increase in carbonate CO3. Scientists believe that the sea in pre-industrial times was 'saturated' relative to dissolved limestone, and that recent increases in CO2 have 'desaturated' the sea (beginning in the antarctic sea), with possible dire consequences for sea life. But we have observed that calcium skeletons dissolve back into what scientists call 'saturated' CO3.

Conclusion It is assumed that you have read part 2 carefully and part 3 cursorily (superficially) before reading the conclusion here, so read it again later.

When I am teaching about the sea, in class or standing on the intertidal rocky shore, I am faced with the question of what is the most important thing to remember about the sea. What is the most important thing I learnt in 40 years?

40 ÅR?

Nothing in the sea works as expected:
its physics, chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, biology and ecology do not work as thought;
truth is often opposite to intuition.
The sea is weirder than we can possibly imagine.
To learn about the sea, forget what you were taught at school, open your mind and begin from scratch.

It is an important message that I want you to take home and keep in the back of your mind whenever you read about marine science or planet science. It is a message for scientists too.
 

Dead planet thinking: most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a dead planet, where every force, every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer. But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel the secrets of the sea.

Opening with these thoughts, the (bio)chemistry of the sea is so complicated and unknown that the scare for acidic oceans is entirely unjustified. It is true that humans should act from a position of humility and prudence, adjusting to nature while never exploiting more than 30% of the environment but we have gone far over that limit. Today nature is adjusting to us and we cannot change that without a much smaller human population and much less waste (CO2 is part of human waste). Well, that is not going to happen. So we have to accept that nature is now changing. An important part of that is an increase of the life-bringing gas carbondioxide. With higher CO2 levels, plants will produce more. Hopefully the world will become warmer too, and all this is welcome to the starving billions. As oceans become more acidic, they will become more productive too, adjusting to the new scenario. There will be no 'tipping points' but there could be some unexpected and unforeseen surprises. The world has been changing and adapting to major changes since it came out of the last ice age, and the changes caused by fossil fuel will be relatively small.

As far as the science of ocean acidification goes, there are some major errors and conflicts, and the amount of missing knowledge is much larger than what we know. Scientists have uncritically accepted the findings of the IPCC with critically low 'pre-industrial' levels of CO2, but has anyone tried to grow plants and seedlings at 180ppmv CO2?

So why is acidification considered a problem? This brings us to some questionable science that was looking for an excuse (Victoria Fabry in James C Orr et al. 2005). By examining certain shell forming plankton species like pteropods (wing-foots, pelagic snails that swim with their foot), it was found that some had minor damage to their shells. Apart from being inconclusive, these results were then hailed as proof that higher acidity in the sea would dissolve shells faster and that eventually the snails would not be able to make their shells fast enough, and that this would lead to extensive ecosystem changes and extinction of species. Also coral reefs would dissolve and weaken and combined with global warming, disappear from the face of the ocean. Oops. Correct me from being wrong, but there is something very fishy here. It is known that CO2 dissolved in rain water, makes it more acidic (pH=5.5-6), thus capable of dissolving limestone at a very slow rate, which takes a dripstone stalagmite thousands of years to grow a few kg.  CO2 + CaCO3 + H2O => 2(HCO3)- + 2Ca2+ (note the one way reaction => because water is transported away)So it is thought that more CO2 in ocean water would do the same. Apart from the fact that a pH=6 has 100 times more hydrogen ions than a pH=8, and does not seem to worry freshwater snails in lakes, sea water is almost saturated with calcium (Ca).

Remember the CO2 equilibrium equations that end in carbonate CO3^2- of 0.12 mmol/kg compared to that of Ca²⁺ of 10.4 mmol/kg? This means that there is not enough carbonate in the water to combine with the free calcium, and any increase in CO2 would mean that laying down a limestone skeleton becomes easier rather than more difficult. An increase in carbonate leads to calcification of CaCO3, just the opposite of what is being claimed! In other words, the vast store of calcium in the oceans has a buffering effect. Notice in this respect also the way salts precipitate when making table salt from sea water (/oceano/seawater.htm), with CaCO3 the first to settle out, followed by gypsum CaSO4.

Sarma et al. (1971) reported an increase in alkalinity of about 11 µmol/kg when DIC (CO2 species as Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) increased by about 20µmol/kg, which should create some inconvenient doubt.
 
 

Calcite and aragonite saturation There is a vast discussion going on and many experiments focusing on 'aragonite saturation', meaning that normal sea water should be in balance with the limestone in sea shells, oversaturated even. However, in practice all sea shells dissolve back into sea water, which means that the concept of aragonite saturation and calcite saturation may live only in our minds. Here is what's behind this idea:

 

On the surface of the ocean all dissolved gases are in balance with those in air. But in the water, with the help of sunlight, plants produce oxygen while consuming CO2. So oxygen concentrations are higher and carbon dioxide concentrations lower than in air. As one goes deeper, the beneficial effect of photosynthesis decreases, and CO2 increases due to breathing and decomposition. In theory at least, the water becomes more acidic with depth, to the point that the thin skeletons of plankton critters (coccolithophores, pteropods, foraminifers, etc) could begin to dissolve. This is called the aragonite saturation horizon (0.5-2.5km). Below it, the shells dissolve, whereas above it, they supposedly don't. As we have shown above, this is a dubious concept (Sarma et al, 1971). There is likewise also a calcite saturation horizon (1.5-5km). The concept explains why clay deposits without limestone occur deeper than those with limestone as carbonate ooze. The diagram shows actually measured values for the carbonate ion CO32-  versus depth (red line). Below 2km the concentration is rather static although it decreases further with pressure. Where it crosses the (hypothetical) aragonite saturation horizon, sea shells will be dissolved gradually, and below where it crosses the calcite horizon, calcite will dissolve as well. It is thought that increased CO2, and thus acidity is the cause of this. Sadly actual pH is missing from this graph (why was it not measured?).

Redigeret af Firebird - 26-Maj-2009 kl. 16:14