• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Increase in extreme sea levels could endanger European coastal communities

Lord of Planar said:
I said capable of, meaning without the increased SST. SST changes play a role in absorption. I thought I made that simple...
Click to expand...

Ah... so when it's pointed out that NASA has a different figure, you're willing to 'clarify' that you meant the oceans and biosphere absorb 70% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on a planet where there has been zero sea surface temperature increase since preindustrial times. Which is still questionable, considering global/hemispheric temperature variations of almost equivalent magnitude over the past millennia have corresponded to CO2 concentration variations of less than 5% (between 271 and 284ppm from 2000 years of high-resolution Law Dome data, so ~13/270).

By the way, I'm guessing that the planet you were talking about is the same planet you keep mentioning whose atmosphere has the same concentrations of methane as CO2? :lol:

Either way, the fact remains that the 120ppm of atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human activity.
 
Last edited:
What is your problem?

That was "my contention." Words have meaning! I just might be wrong, but it is my solid belief that "around" 70% is true if the SST was unchanged. Now what might an error range be for "around?" maybe 20% or more? +/- 20% would be 56% to 84%. The NASA number includes the warming of the seas. Might there number at least be 60% without SST changes?

Yes, we have increased 120 ppm if you use a 280 ppm baseline.

CH4 has a whole different equilibrium chemistry.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What is your problem?

That was "my contention." Words have meaning! I just might be wrong, but it is my solid belief that "around" 70% is true if the SST was unchanged. Now what might an error range be for "around?" maybe 20% or more? +/- 20% would be 56% to 84%. The NASA number includes the warming of the seas. Might there number at least be 60% without SST changes?

Yes, we have increased 120 ppm if you use a 280 ppm baseline.

CH4 has a whole different equilibrium chemistry.
Click to expand...

'Might', 'around'... sound like weasel words.

Of course, they're weasel words used by a rank amateur who's knowledge of climate science is entirely derived from what he's learned in his armchair.

IOW, a pundit. A denier pundit.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What is your problem?

That was "my contention." Words have meaning! I just might be wrong, but it is my solid belief that "around" 70% is true if the SST was unchanged. Now what might an error range be for "around?" maybe 20% or more? +/- 20% would be 56% to 84%. The NASA number includes the warming of the seas. Might there number at least be 60% without SST changes?

Yes, we have increased 120 ppm if you use a 280 ppm baseline.

CH4 has a whole different equilibrium chemistry.
Click to expand...

Sorry, are you getting upset? Maybe before doing so, you should explain what your problem is? Surface Detail pointed out that the atmospheric CO2 increase above the 280+/- preindustrial levels has been a result of human activity. He was correct.

But for some reason currently known only to yourself, you attempted to dismiss and deride him, asserting that what he'd said was "the assumption to be made by novices to the sciences." You couched your words - yes, they do have meaning - in a way which attempted to portray a substantial portion of the atmospheric increase to be non-anthropogenic:
"I will contend that the oceans and vegetation are capable of around 70% of what we emit, and the remainder of the CO2 buildup is due to SST increases. If we had no androgenic CO2 emissions, we would still have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere due to SST increases."​

You were wrong. If there'd been no anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric CO2 would have remained in the same ~271-284 band it had been in for over two thousand years; otherwise, as I pointed out, you would have to believe that temperatures over that period had never come even remotely close to the 20th century.

There's nothing particularly bad about being wrong - it happens to all of us at times. But the embarrassing thing is that you tried to act so very superior, and you tried to pretend that Surface Detail was wrong; but he was right, and you were wrong, and when I pointed out your mistake you started pretending that all along you'd really been agreeing that the CO2 increase has all been anthropogenic.

I'm glad you agree, but do you really need to pretend to be offended just because your high and mighty act was - as it were - blown out of the water?



Edit: LOL 3G. You forgot that they're only weasel words when he doesn't like the information provided :lol:
 
Mithrae said:
Sorry, are you getting upset? Maybe before doing so, you should explain what your problem is? Surface Detail pointed out that the atmospheric CO2 increase above the 280+/- preindustrial levels has been a result of human activity. He was correct.

But for some reason currently known only to yourself, you attempted to dismiss and deride him, asserting that what he'd said was "the assumption to be made by novices to the sciences." You couched your words - yes, they do have meaning - in a way which attempted to portray a substantial portion of the atmospheric increase to be non-anthropogenic:
"I will contend that the oceans and vegetation are capable of around 70% of what we emit, and the remainder of the CO2 buildup is due to SST increases. If we had no androgenic CO2 emissions, we would still have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere due to SST increases."​

You were wrong. If there'd been no anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric CO2 would have remained in the same ~271-284 band it had been in for over two thousand years; otherwise, as I pointed out, you would have to believe that temperatures over that period had never come even remotely close to the 20th century.

There's nothing particularly bad about being wrong - it happens to all of us at times. But the embarrassing thing is that you tried to act so very superior, and you tried to pretend that Surface Detail was wrong; but he was right, and you were wrong, and when I pointed out your mistake you started pretending that all along you'd really been agreeing that the CO2 increase has all been anthropogenic.

I'm glad you agree, but do you really need to pretend to be offended just because your high and mighty act was - as it were - blown out of the water?



Edit: LOL 3G. You forgot that they're only weasel words when he doesn't like the information provided :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness, he WAS only speaking of 'androgenic' emissions.
 
Mithrae said:
Sorry, are you getting upset? Maybe before doing so, you should explain what your problem is? Surface Detail pointed out that the atmospheric CO2 increase above the 280+/- preindustrial levels has been a result of human activity. He was correct.
Click to expand...
Some of it most definitely is due to our activity. However, the sun has also increased the ocean surface heat. Doing the math in the past, we would have higher CO2 levels now just purely based on SST changes. The proper ratio? hard to say.

His wording claims it is all due to human activity and states it in such a way that says anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
Mithrae said:
But for some reason currently known only to yourself, you attempted to dismiss and deride him, asserting that what he'd said was "the assumption to be made by novices to the sciences." You couched your words - yes, they do have meaning - in a way which attempted to portray a substantial portion of the atmospheric increase to be non-anthropogenic:
"I will contend that the oceans and vegetation are capable of around 70% of what we emit, and the remainder of the CO2 buildup is due to SST increases. If we had no androgenic CO2 emissions, we would still have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere due to SST increases."​

You were wrong. If there'd been no anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric CO2 would have remained in the same ~271-284 band it had been in for over two thousand years; otherwise, as I pointed out, you would have to believe that temperatures over that period had never come even remotely close to the 20th century.
Click to expand...
I see... So you disagree with partial pressure equilibrium changes with a liquids temperature.

OK...

Mithrae said:
There's nothing particularly bad about being wrong - it happens to all of us at times. But the embarrassing thing is that you tried to act so very superior, and you tried to pretend that Surface Detail was wrong; but he was right, and you were wrong, and when I pointed out your mistake you started pretending that all along you'd really been agreeing that the CO2 increase has all been anthropogenic.

I'm glad you agree, but do you really need to pretend to be offended just because your high and mighty act was - as it were - blown out of the water?
Click to expand...
So tell me. How do you know I'm wrong? Are you playing that superiority card you claim I am?

Do I smell hypocrisy?

Mithrae said:
Edit: LOL 3G. You forgot that they're only weasel words when he doesn't like the information provided :lol:
Click to expand...
I won't deny I use "weasel words" on occasion. My problem with weasel words is how the pundits then miss-portray what a scientist actually means. Stating fact where the scientist doesn't give it.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Some of it most definitely is due to our activity. However, the sun has also increased the ocean surface heat. Doing the math in the past, we would have higher CO2 levels now just purely based on SST changes. The proper ratio? hard to say.

His wording claims it is all due to human activity and states it in such a way that says anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

I see... So you disagree with partial pressure equilibrium changes with a liquids temperature.

OK...
Click to expand...

With more or less steady quantities of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system, historical temperatures similar to if not higher than the mid 20th century's (eg. the Roman warm period and Medieval warm period) with much longer opportunities to reach equilibrium resulted in atmospheric concentrations no higher than ~284ppm. That is a fact which you are obviously desperate to avoid acknowledging.

Atmospheric concentrations currently stand at ~408ppm. Therefore, 120+ppm out of the last 120+ppm increase is due to human activity; by directly increasing atmospheric concentrations, by increasing the total carbon inventory of the system on which the equilibrium is based and (least significantly) by increasing temperatures beyond natural variability.

Lord of Planar said:
So tell me. How do you know I'm wrong? Are you playing that superiority card you claim I am?

Do I smell hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

I cited NASA and the Law Dome CO2 data to show that your assertions were wrong. You have cited... nothing. Merely dismissed others as "novices to the sciences" and given your own bald assertions (sorry, "contentions") to the contrary. So far you have not provided one single iota of evidence for your assertion that "If we had no androgenic CO2 emissions, we would still have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere due to SST increases."

Unless 'elevated' genuinely is a weasel word, trying to imply substantial increases when you know perfectly well that it would not have exceeded the 280s.


(In fact during the Holocene thermal maximum - when temperatures were about as high as today's for thousands of years on end due primarily to solar/orbital variation - CO2 concentrations were actually quite low, around 260ppm, according to lower-resolution ice core data from the EPICA Dome.)
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
With more or less steady quantities of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system, historical temperatures similar to if not higher than the mid 20th century's (eg. the Roman warm period and Medieval warm period) with much longer opportunities to reach equilibrium resulted in atmospheric concentrations no higher than ~284ppm. That is a fact which you are obviously desperate to avoid acknowledging.
Click to expand...

I am full aware of those studies. I think they were above 284 ppm, but not enough to quibble about.

Thing is...

Are you aware of the scientific opinion that it is believed that these peak levels of about 284 ppm are a limitation due to gas pressures and outguessing during the freezing process? Like a pressure release valve. Anything above that ~284 ppm is recorded at that max level in the proxies.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I am full aware of those studies. I think they were above 284 ppm, but not enough to quibble about.
Click to expand...

I linked the data. There is no CO2 value at or above 284ppm prior to the 19th century, though it reaches 283.9 in the 12th. Maybe you are not quite as full aware as you think you are - most reasonable people would have checked the data provided before proffering their hazy recollections.

Lord of Planar said:
Thing is...

Are you aware of the scientific opinion that it is believed that these peak levels of about 284 ppm are a limitation due to gas pressures and outguessing during the freezing process? Like a pressure release valve. Anything above that ~284 ppm is recorded at that max level in the proxies.
Click to expand...

If that were so, I wonder why ice cores show values above 300ppm in the 1910s ranging up to 340+ppm in the 1980s (from data gathered in the late 90s) and 365+ppm by 1999 (from data gathered 6 years later)? And why they preserve values values of up to 298ppm from over three hundred thousand years ago?

Do you have a recent, credible source supporting that hypothesis? I've heard it before and I can certainly imagine contrarian blogs, discomforted by the available information, continuing to propagate 'alternative' theories long after they've been disproven. It's difficult to imagine that 300,000 years - or 80 years, or even 20 years for that matter - was somehow not enough time to accommodate the speculated outgassing, so if such a mechanism were in play its limit would evidently have to be well above 300ppm.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
I linked the data. There is no CO2 value at or above 284ppm prior to the 19th century, though it reaches 283.9 in the 12th. Maybe you are not quite as full aware as you think you are - most reasonable people would have checked the data provided before proffering their hazy recollections.
Click to expand...
Most people wouldn't assume just one set of cores.

Mithrae said:
If that were so, I wonder why ice cores show values above 300ppm in the 1910s ranging up to 340+ppm in the 1980s (from data gathered in the late 90s) and 365+ppm by 1999 (from data gathered 6 years later)? And why they preserve values values of up to 298ppm from over three hundred thousand years ago?
Click to expand...
The gasses haven't been squeezed out yet, or what ever the process is. CO2 and other gasses compress differently, and even have chemistry differences. As for up to 298 ppm, maybe the actual content in the atmosphere was much higher than that, allowing for the gas in trapped ice to read that high.

Mithrae said:
Do you have a recent, credible source supporting that hypothesis? I've heard it before and I can certainly imagine contrarian blogs, discomforted by the available information, continuing to propagate 'alternative' theories long after they've been disproven. It's difficult to imagine that 300,000 years - or 80 years, or even 20 years for that matter - was somehow not enough time to accommodate the speculated outgassing, so if such a mechanism were in play its limit would evidently have to be well above 300ppm.
Click to expand...
It's out there. I don't recall information sources that old. It is likely in some ice core studies.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Most people wouldn't assume just one set of cores.


The gasses haven't been squeezed out yet, or what ever the process is. CO2 and other gasses compress differently, and even have chemistry differences. As for up to 298 ppm, maybe the actual content in the atmosphere was much higher than that, allowing for the gas in trapped ice to read that high.


It's out there. I don't recall information sources that old. It is likely in some ice core studies.
Click to expand...

"Whatever the process is." "Maybe." "Don't recall." "Likely."

The long and short of it is that you don't like the data, so you're essentially going with rampant speculation instead. Where on earth do you imagine that this 300,000 year old CO2 buried under three kilometers of ice was disappearing to? And if it was disappearing for all that time, how do you explain the consistency of both interglacial peak values and glacial low values for at least the past 400,000 years? If the 'real' interglacial values were much higher, the newer deposits would have depleted much less so they should be higher than the older ones, but instead they are slightly lower. And that's to say nothing of the consistency of results between various gases:
air_bubbles_historical.jpg
 
Last edited:
The long or the short of it is you "deny" any suggestion outside the dogma you learned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom