[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Animals do not sink CO2. On the contrary, they are the primary source!

Biology 101: plants are defined as things that use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates, hydrocarbons and oxygen; animals are defined as things that generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates and hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide.

Surely the primary sink for carbon is the use of it as shells by sea creatures. Animals.

When they drop down to become limestone they take the carbon with them for a very long time.

[chiralSPO]

Animals do not sink CO2. On the contrary, they are the primary source!

Biology 101: plants are defined as things that use solar energy to convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates, hydrocarbons and oxygen; animals are defined as things that generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates and hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide.

Surely the primary sink for carbon is the use of it as shells by sea creatures. Animals.

When they drop down to become limestone they take the carbon with them for a very long time.

I'll agree with you here!

I don't know off hand how much CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere each year by non-photosynthetic marine organisms (including coral and diatoms) these days, but diatoms removed an enormous portion of atmospheric CO2 way back when they first evolved.

[alancalverd]

No matter how much carbon dioxide I generate by living, eating meat, driving around, and running umpteen machines at work, when I die there will be about a ton of CO2 sequestered in my house. So should we encourage everyone to make steel and concrete? I think not. 

It would be interesting to know the lifetime CO2 balance of a diatom or coral polyp. There's certainly a lot of it sequestered in sedimentary rock but the carboxylwarmists keep reminding us that weathering puts the stuff back into the atmosphere!

[jeffreyH]

Depends upon the heavy water vapour concentration in the atmosphere.

The heavy water vapor concentration in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Not the other way around. That is why deuterium content is used to measure temperature indirectly.

Are you saying that when temperature increases the lighter hydrogen rises leaving the deuterium at lower levels and so at a greater concentration?

[jeffreyH]

So what causes the ratios in the oceans, rivers and lakes to change?

[jeffreyH]

How does this explain the cycles in the ice cores?

[chiralSPO]

How does this explain the cycles in the ice cores?

The ice in the cores is from compressed snowfall. So you can think of it like sedimentary rock: the earliest snow has become the deepest ice, and the most recent snow became the ice near the top (so this establishes the timeline). Then, because the ice was deposited as snow, we know that the water had become vaporized, redistributed and then fell as snow. Therefore the ratio of the H/D isotopes in a given part of the ice core is reflective of the H/D ratio in the atmosphere at a given point in time, and this serves as an indication of the temperature of the surface water around the globe when the snow formed.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

[jeffreyH]

Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?

So far the worst thing about a slightly warmer world seems to be that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.

[jeffreyH]

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/papers/SPEC_ACTA_60_2611_2004.pdf
This is of interest.

[Bored chemist]

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?
.

Yes, there's still an answer.
You still keep ignoring it.

Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 23/05/2017 19:55:47

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.

Actually, it's quite easy to defend.
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.[/quote]

[jeffreyH]

Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?

So far the worst thing about a slightly warmer world seems to be that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.

Part of the process in determining the answer to your question is to examine the evidence and trying to determine causes and mechanisms. Or we could just pull things out of the air.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?
.

Yes, there's still an answer.
You still keep ignoring it.

Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 23/05/2017 19:55:47

You know the situation that the very strongly held view that Global warming is very bad and all, but even on this science forum that position is elusively hard to actually defend.

Actually, it's quite easy to defend.
More energy coupled into the weather gives rise to more extreme weather which will kill people which is a bad thing.
What's difficult is to get you to accept that.

If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Does all this talk about heavy hydrogen have anything to do with there being anything bad about a slightly warmer world?

The important point is there are facts and data in the posts by alancalverd and chiralSPO. You cannot reach conclusions without them.

Whatever the point of the duterium thing is, I have no idea where it is going, that is separate from the question of why a slightly warmer world would be at all bad. Any chance of an answer to that?

So far the worst thing about a slightly warmer world seems to be that Maple syrup production will move North a bit.

Part of the process in determining the answer to your question is to examine the evidence and trying to determine causes and mechanisms. Or we could just pull things out of the air.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?

[Bored chemist]

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?

If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.

[jeffreyH]

The huge problem is that water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas but it is always present. As temperature increases the ratio of isotopes in the water changes. This is unlike methane, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses. They don't have more than one phase present in quantities. To say how bad thing are likely to get is not to assume that we know the cause and then determine how bad our guess might turn out.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?

If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.

I have been very clear;

I want to see if there is any science that supports the idea that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing.

Not science about if that warmer world will happen. At least not in this thread.

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

[jeffreyH]

Science cannot tell you that. It is subjective and open to interpretation. To be able to make that interpretation you need to analyse the data and make a judgement based on personal criteria. What might appear bad to one person might appear good to another. That is down to the vagaries of human nature.

[chiralSPO]

OK, so, in two successive posts you say that you want more science but in the second you say that you want less science.

Feel free to make up your mind.

The thing about the global warming debate is that it can endlessly get into the pysics of how CO2 does or does not absorb IR.

I am unable to comment on that as I don't know anything about it.

So this thread is asking to look at the debate assuming that it does make the world warmer. What then? Is there actually anything bad about a warmer world?

If you were to actually cite some science we could look at if there was any credibility to that.

Then we could look at how much of a thing it was.

If it was significant then You would have done it.

Each time you avoid doing it you make the point that you have no such science.

I have been very clear;

I want to see if there is any science that supports the idea that a slightly warmer world is a bad thing.

Not science about if that warmer world will happen. At least not in this thread.

That you will try any trick or evaision says it all as to there being no such science.

There is no shortage of primary and secondary literature that addresses this very question. But my experience shows me that you will discount anything I put forth, so if you are as interested in answering this question as you claim to be, I suggest you do some diggin' yourself. Perhaps start here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+climate+change+bad