Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=77VejUbuFsk#!
Food for thought! Cheers - John
Murderers, Tyrants & Madmen - a response to Heartland
#2
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 18 May 2012 - 16:28
Hey John,
If a food at best it s pablem, or possble liberal mind candy. There was nothing of value to take away other then a possible counter to the criminals put up by the Heartland group. Neither position adds anything other then aingst to the conversation. Sorry, this thread at best may be worthy of a media discussion; but, it does not apply to the climate, other then to suggest CO2 was not the only cause of greenhouse warming that Ms. Thatcher noted. That Dr. Sagan suggested a relationship between CO2 and wv was interesting, though to associate one coinsidently with the other is a basic fallicy. We have not seen either carbonated rain or weak carbonic acid form in the clouds, to my knowledge.
If a food at best it s pablem, or possble liberal mind candy. There was nothing of value to take away other then a possible counter to the criminals put up by the Heartland group. Neither position adds anything other then aingst to the conversation. Sorry, this thread at best may be worthy of a media discussion; but, it does not apply to the climate, other then to suggest CO2 was not the only cause of greenhouse warming that Ms. Thatcher noted. That Dr. Sagan suggested a relationship between CO2 and wv was interesting, though to associate one coinsidently with the other is a basic fallicy. We have not seen either carbonated rain or weak carbonic acid form in the clouds, to my knowledge.
#3
Posted 18 May 2012 - 18:13
O/T Dave - but if weak carbonic acid did not fall from the clouds then weathering that leads directly to secondary carbonate mineral formation (even in areas with nil primary carbonate to attack) would not occur. It does, very frequently.
If Heartland deliberately set out to spread angst and it gains traction, as it often has done over the years, it needs constant countering.
Cheers - John
If Heartland deliberately set out to spread angst and it gains traction, as it often has done over the years, it needs constant countering.
Cheers - John
#4
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 18 May 2012 - 19:31
John Mason, on 18 May 2012 - 18:13, said:
O/T Dave - but if weak carbonic acid did not fall from the clouds then weathering that leads directly to secondary carbonate mineral formation (even in areas with nil primary carbonate to attack) would not occur. It does, very frequently.
If Heartland deliberately set out to spread angst and it gains traction, as it often has done over the years, it needs constant countering.
Cheers - John
If Heartland deliberately set out to spread angst and it gains traction, as it often has done over the years, it needs constant countering.
Cheers - John
Hey John,
Not by my Colorimeric Testing, the slight acidic solution is sulfate not carbonate based. Somewhere around my old library I have an old Fishers scientific catalog, there was an ion testing kit for about $20 (usd) about 10ya. It may not define the quantity per-sey, (color/clarity intensity on a supplied plackard with a scale is about the best you get).
However, with a couple of test tubes, a mililiter flask, some distilled water and the kit you can usually get pretty close to a value. Its what I used to test surface ocean water off the Florida coast with...
Anyway, as to countering the Heartland group, why not put some bite in the response, such as providing facts in the face of the lies and smearing. (Rather then this "like for like", BS, kick`em where it hurts.) So far they have nothing, so demand they either put up or shut up.
#5
Posted 18 May 2012 - 19:45
Hey Dave,
I don't see, as you suggest, "like for like BS". I see facts against rhetoric. Don't get me wrong - Maggie Thatcher was not, had Facebook been around at the time, someone I would have added to my friends list! But on this - and on the ozone depletion issue - she was on the case: her background in chemistry led her in both cases.
WRT weathering and your sampling, it will depend from area to area and on weather-patterns. Here, in easterlies, especially in the winter months, largely anthropogenic SO2 is generally very abundant. No surprises there. But minor CO2 in rainfall is an extremely effective weathering agent. I had a paper published on this in 2004 IIRC, with respect to Cenozoic tropical weathering and deep oxidation of some Pb-Cu-Zn lodes here in Central Wales. See: http://www.geologywa...ng-in-wales.htm for a photo-blog version. Not only that, but mineral weathering occasionally goes berserk - this occurs during orogenies simply because the surface area of mineral grains available to be weathered goes through the roof. Orders of magnitude-style. These periods have even at high CO2 concentrations been identified as significant drawdown events taking place over several millions of years. For example, there is a huge isotopic signal for weathering in the warm climate in which the Taconic Orogeny occurred, prior to the sudden cooling that led to the Hirnantian glaciation and the accompanying mass-extinction. Cheers - John
I don't see, as you suggest, "like for like BS". I see facts against rhetoric. Don't get me wrong - Maggie Thatcher was not, had Facebook been around at the time, someone I would have added to my friends list! But on this - and on the ozone depletion issue - she was on the case: her background in chemistry led her in both cases.
WRT weathering and your sampling, it will depend from area to area and on weather-patterns. Here, in easterlies, especially in the winter months, largely anthropogenic SO2 is generally very abundant. No surprises there. But minor CO2 in rainfall is an extremely effective weathering agent. I had a paper published on this in 2004 IIRC, with respect to Cenozoic tropical weathering and deep oxidation of some Pb-Cu-Zn lodes here in Central Wales. See: http://www.geologywa...ng-in-wales.htm for a photo-blog version. Not only that, but mineral weathering occasionally goes berserk - this occurs during orogenies simply because the surface area of mineral grains available to be weathered goes through the roof. Orders of magnitude-style. These periods have even at high CO2 concentrations been identified as significant drawdown events taking place over several millions of years. For example, there is a huge isotopic signal for weathering in the warm climate in which the Taconic Orogeny occurred, prior to the sudden cooling that led to the Hirnantian glaciation and the accompanying mass-extinction. Cheers - John
#6
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 18 May 2012 - 23:34
Hey John,
Actually I have yet to see a direct toe to toe, show me yours here is mine. Instead we get here is mine and then the sniping starts. It would make more sense to take any arguement directly to the snipe. Instead we get rocks thrown over the wall, using the media to do it with.
Its time to make a strong stand; however, the AGW community cannot do that, the reason, they do not know how the changes are being manifest or how those changes are going to affect the weather/climate. All we clearly have happening is 1. The CO2 composition in the atmosphere has risen 30% 2. The Specific Humidity in the Temperate Zone has changed in the vertical air column. 3. That the Northern Jet Stream has shifted from a season variation of between 45-60 deg. in the Summer and 30-45 deg. in the Winter, to a nearly year round 25-60 degree swing. 4. The decrease of Polar ice caused by warm ocean currents both melting surface ice and creating a warm resource for on shore winds. 5. The average wv optical depth has increased as the clouds have decreased due to changes in the vertical air column. 6. That the general circulation or heat flow has changed in both the atmosphere and ocean surface driven by changes in the radiant pathways.
These are things we know, added up the extremes of yester-year are becoming the normal and new extremes are emerging, this certainly certainly suggests that there is a difference in our atmosphere. The problem is no one can prove directly that these changes are the result of the resident atmospheric CO2 having increased 30%. If the AGW community will stop trying to suggest a unsubstanciated data point as fact, would be a good start to bridging the devide. By this I do not mean suggesting CO2 does not play a part; however, until such time that a cause and effect relationship can be acertained for all to see, it is time to review the events that are happening. We need to review the changes over the last 50 years and tie the changes introdced by Man to changes seen in the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, do this and the sniping stops.
If there are those who wish to continue to snipe then they need to be prepared with a defense that refutes tbe physical evidence and not some software program that no one apparently knows how it does what it does, they simply plug in values, tweak the output and repeat. It is time to address the real effects and the real events. Take the facts to the twerps and lets be done with the grousing.
As to the evidence you have of geological processes, you cannot tell me that the chemistry in an uncontrolled natural world has one degree of freedom. As I said, I measured the CO2 not in solution from rain, have you?, I have measured both the sulfate and nitric acids in solution in rain. I have seen the effects of weathering on the statuary in Venice, ( via an old National Geographic issue)... I have seen the effects of HCL on limestone. I have seen the results of strong UV sunlight energy, sodium chloride, water and hydrogen sulfide on steel, I could just imagine its effects on other minerals. I do not say these things lightly I am saying if there is a clear line of evidence then lets see it.
Actually I have yet to see a direct toe to toe, show me yours here is mine. Instead we get here is mine and then the sniping starts. It would make more sense to take any arguement directly to the snipe. Instead we get rocks thrown over the wall, using the media to do it with.
Its time to make a strong stand; however, the AGW community cannot do that, the reason, they do not know how the changes are being manifest or how those changes are going to affect the weather/climate. All we clearly have happening is 1. The CO2 composition in the atmosphere has risen 30% 2. The Specific Humidity in the Temperate Zone has changed in the vertical air column. 3. That the Northern Jet Stream has shifted from a season variation of between 45-60 deg. in the Summer and 30-45 deg. in the Winter, to a nearly year round 25-60 degree swing. 4. The decrease of Polar ice caused by warm ocean currents both melting surface ice and creating a warm resource for on shore winds. 5. The average wv optical depth has increased as the clouds have decreased due to changes in the vertical air column. 6. That the general circulation or heat flow has changed in both the atmosphere and ocean surface driven by changes in the radiant pathways.
These are things we know, added up the extremes of yester-year are becoming the normal and new extremes are emerging, this certainly certainly suggests that there is a difference in our atmosphere. The problem is no one can prove directly that these changes are the result of the resident atmospheric CO2 having increased 30%. If the AGW community will stop trying to suggest a unsubstanciated data point as fact, would be a good start to bridging the devide. By this I do not mean suggesting CO2 does not play a part; however, until such time that a cause and effect relationship can be acertained for all to see, it is time to review the events that are happening. We need to review the changes over the last 50 years and tie the changes introdced by Man to changes seen in the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, do this and the sniping stops.
If there are those who wish to continue to snipe then they need to be prepared with a defense that refutes tbe physical evidence and not some software program that no one apparently knows how it does what it does, they simply plug in values, tweak the output and repeat. It is time to address the real effects and the real events. Take the facts to the twerps and lets be done with the grousing.
As to the evidence you have of geological processes, you cannot tell me that the chemistry in an uncontrolled natural world has one degree of freedom. As I said, I measured the CO2 not in solution from rain, have you?, I have measured both the sulfate and nitric acids in solution in rain. I have seen the effects of weathering on the statuary in Venice, ( via an old National Geographic issue)... I have seen the effects of HCL on limestone. I have seen the results of strong UV sunlight energy, sodium chloride, water and hydrogen sulfide on steel, I could just imagine its effects on other minerals. I do not say these things lightly I am saying if there is a clear line of evidence then lets see it.
#7
Posted 19 May 2012 - 08:44
Hi Dave,
If you follow the link you will see the evidence you need! Cheers - John
If you follow the link you will see the evidence you need! Cheers - John
#8
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 19 May 2012 - 11:45
Hey John,
Okay, I followed the link and saw a circular proof. The idea of secondary mineralization or sulfide "blooming" being driven by atmospheric CO2 is a fallacy, given the immediate following example of copper carbonate. In essence, most of what we saw in the samples are examples of igneous intrusive rock, with the primary matrix (constituients) of silicas penetrating fractured iron/magnesium rock. That the sulfides have been hydrogenated or acidified have many sources, including HCL bearing ocean on-shore winds, and nitric/sulfuric acid bearing rainfall, leaching carbonides from the area lime/chalk marine deposits.
As to the bleaching you described, a combination of UV exposure and oxygen oxygenates many minerals. (Chlorides reduce them, hence the probability of HCL activity contributing to the ion exchange.)
My experience with secondary mineralization, as is found in your example, requires either a ionic solution bath or a highly ionic humidity with no wind. Hence, unless you measured the Carbon Dioxide in the rain, most of the carbon in the solution was likely disolved out of the surface by HCL and H2SO4 with some HNO3 mixed in. Then either the rocks were submerged in hot water, bearing these ionic solutions or were in a highly ionic, humid, warm air (read acidic steam) environment with very little circulation. Though I am not a geologist even I understand the basics of light mineral crystal formations...
Again, it appears that we are at an impass, proof of a process is lacking. There were no measures of CO2 in the rainfall... This is where there is a communications problem. If you believe something, you accept a statement without verification, thats human nature... The problem is that those who are skeptical need proofs and direct cause and effect evidence. There are too many degrees of freedom for that to be established with the current state of the science.
Okay, I followed the link and saw a circular proof. The idea of secondary mineralization or sulfide "blooming" being driven by atmospheric CO2 is a fallacy, given the immediate following example of copper carbonate. In essence, most of what we saw in the samples are examples of igneous intrusive rock, with the primary matrix (constituients) of silicas penetrating fractured iron/magnesium rock. That the sulfides have been hydrogenated or acidified have many sources, including HCL bearing ocean on-shore winds, and nitric/sulfuric acid bearing rainfall, leaching carbonides from the area lime/chalk marine deposits.
As to the bleaching you described, a combination of UV exposure and oxygen oxygenates many minerals. (Chlorides reduce them, hence the probability of HCL activity contributing to the ion exchange.)
My experience with secondary mineralization, as is found in your example, requires either a ionic solution bath or a highly ionic humidity with no wind. Hence, unless you measured the Carbon Dioxide in the rain, most of the carbon in the solution was likely disolved out of the surface by HCL and H2SO4 with some HNO3 mixed in. Then either the rocks were submerged in hot water, bearing these ionic solutions or were in a highly ionic, humid, warm air (read acidic steam) environment with very little circulation. Though I am not a geologist even I understand the basics of light mineral crystal formations...
Again, it appears that we are at an impass, proof of a process is lacking. There were no measures of CO2 in the rainfall... This is where there is a communications problem. If you believe something, you accept a statement without verification, thats human nature... The problem is that those who are skeptical need proofs and direct cause and effect evidence. There are too many degrees of freedom for that to be established with the current state of the science.
#9
Posted 19 May 2012 - 19:01
Then Dave I am sorry but you have not read carefully enough. Despite your very confident and assertive statements, there are 1) no outcropping igneous rocks in the area of Wales written about, 2) neither are there limestones or other carbonate rocks; 3) this is an area of slaty rocks and 4) how could UV exposure create pervasive whole-rock bleaching tens or hundreds of feet below the then surface? Remember that these secondary deposits have been exposed by glacial erosion, and I present compelling evidence for that too.
Finally, why do you think the old name for carbon dioxide is "carbonic acid gas"?
These are the equations:
1) CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 and 2) H2CO3 <-> H+ + HCO3-
This is such basic chemistry that I learned it at school in the early 1970s and yet you elect to dismiss it aside with a sweep of your hand. I'm disappointed, frankly, because you are normally pretty well on the case with such basic science principles. I hope you might re-read that link and reconsider, because otherwise we will just have to agree to differ on this one.
Cheers - John
edited because b followed by a bracket makes a smiley!
Finally, why do you think the old name for carbon dioxide is "carbonic acid gas"?
These are the equations:
1) CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 and 2) H2CO3 <-> H+ + HCO3-
This is such basic chemistry that I learned it at school in the early 1970s and yet you elect to dismiss it aside with a sweep of your hand. I'm disappointed, frankly, because you are normally pretty well on the case with such basic science principles. I hope you might re-read that link and reconsider, because otherwise we will just have to agree to differ on this one.
Cheers - John
edited because b followed by a bracket makes a smiley!
#10
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: 10-September 11
- LocationNr Newport,Shrops.
Posted 19 May 2012 - 22:21
All i can say is..eh? what is this malarky to the humble wx watcher..on the ground, eyes and ears, bread and butter storm or non storm lover 
#11
- Group: Members
- Posts: 315
- Joined: 10-May 12
- LocationWorcestershire
Posted 19 May 2012 - 22:31
An interesting exchange of opinions.
I watched the video that John Mason posted. Not really very much to get your teeth into - just many quotes from various people over the years, which are well known already - in particular those references made by Thatcher.
There is brief mention of the Heartlands Institute of course, and their precarious campaign to ruin what I shall describe as the 'good science.' I rather feel they have scored an 'own goal' here. But I don't think anyone took it seriously.
I was interested in the reference to the melting of the ice caps and their decline. I am a little confused. It seems rather obvious that when our planet is warming, the ice caps will eventually melt. That is climate change. On the flip side, when we go through glaciated periods ice coverage increases. How has that ever changed through billions of years and countless ice epochs? It hasn't. I seemed to draw an inference from the video that Co2 was causing the current decline - yes/ no??? Not even a reference to AGW perhaps only speeding things up. I did not think this was well presented. The feedback from the melting ice is obvious. The cause is not. Natural climate change or AGW?
And here lies the problem, can we show that anthropogenically added Co2 ALONE has caused what we are seeing now. Furthermore, what is the comparator against which we compare the science? The last but one ice age is of course, but no witnesses also to its eventual decline.
Before we inherited it, this planet went through many phases of temperature change, many far worse than what we are encountering now. And at times in the past Co2 was also higher probably as many times as it was lower.
I found it interesting that the video talked about the effects of Co2 and the harm to our planet, but not one mention of why all this Co2 is being produced in the first place. But that would be like debating why someone who has smoked for 40 years has lung cancer.
Good day.
I watched the video that John Mason posted. Not really very much to get your teeth into - just many quotes from various people over the years, which are well known already - in particular those references made by Thatcher.
There is brief mention of the Heartlands Institute of course, and their precarious campaign to ruin what I shall describe as the 'good science.' I rather feel they have scored an 'own goal' here. But I don't think anyone took it seriously.
I was interested in the reference to the melting of the ice caps and their decline. I am a little confused. It seems rather obvious that when our planet is warming, the ice caps will eventually melt. That is climate change. On the flip side, when we go through glaciated periods ice coverage increases. How has that ever changed through billions of years and countless ice epochs? It hasn't. I seemed to draw an inference from the video that Co2 was causing the current decline - yes/ no??? Not even a reference to AGW perhaps only speeding things up. I did not think this was well presented. The feedback from the melting ice is obvious. The cause is not. Natural climate change or AGW?
And here lies the problem, can we show that anthropogenically added Co2 ALONE has caused what we are seeing now. Furthermore, what is the comparator against which we compare the science? The last but one ice age is of course, but no witnesses also to its eventual decline.
Before we inherited it, this planet went through many phases of temperature change, many far worse than what we are encountering now. And at times in the past Co2 was also higher probably as many times as it was lower.
I found it interesting that the video talked about the effects of Co2 and the harm to our planet, but not one mention of why all this Co2 is being produced in the first place. But that would be like debating why someone who has smoked for 40 years has lung cancer.
Good day.
#12
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 19 May 2012 - 22:31
Hey John,
Simples, the image immediatly preceeding the copper carbonate is obvious a quartz intrusion into fractured iron magnesium with a pyrite deposit that we often see in our similar deposits here. The water and carbonic deposits trapped between the magma and the surface super heat, mixing with the SO with the combination resulting in sulfate salts forming in the super heated vapor chambers.
As to an assertion wrt CO2 chemistry I do not disagree; however, there is no evidence wrt CO2 mixed with rainwater resulting in the copper carbonate. As to the leaching of marine carbonates, these along with high levels of fossil carbon was common in Wales to my understanding. At issue is not the chemistry; but, the lack of support for the conclusion you appear to draw.
(I will review your bleaching evidence further; so far I do not see a case; however, you are the expert... Hence, I submit to your learned disertation; but, I reserve my right to remain scepticle...)
Simples, the image immediatly preceeding the copper carbonate is obvious a quartz intrusion into fractured iron magnesium with a pyrite deposit that we often see in our similar deposits here. The water and carbonic deposits trapped between the magma and the surface super heat, mixing with the SO with the combination resulting in sulfate salts forming in the super heated vapor chambers.
As to an assertion wrt CO2 chemistry I do not disagree; however, there is no evidence wrt CO2 mixed with rainwater resulting in the copper carbonate. As to the leaching of marine carbonates, these along with high levels of fossil carbon was common in Wales to my understanding. At issue is not the chemistry; but, the lack of support for the conclusion you appear to draw.
(I will review your bleaching evidence further; so far I do not see a case; however, you are the expert... Hence, I submit to your learned disertation; but, I reserve my right to remain scepticle...)
#13
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: 10-September 11
- LocationNr Newport,Shrops.
Posted 19 May 2012 - 22:35
..can i have a flake in mine ta 
#14
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 20 May 2012 - 01:00
Hey Harry,
Both welcome to the discussion and to UKww. It is nice to see that there are others that are reserving the right to be skeptical besides the normal crew here. So what attracted you the most, the weather, the pictures or is it te opportunity to share in the discussions here? As usual we do our best to try to have an open an informed discussion, though at times, well you can imagine...
Luckily I consider John a good and true friend so it is nice to share the different povs we have. Contrary to some opinions we do our best to offer a balanced approach though with only a few professionals such as John, Nigel, Dave W., and several others, most here are simply those who have a great interest in natural science and in this Forum, Mans influence on Climate. (Generally it is Climate which defines the weather patterns that can be expected.)
As to some of the background comments of the lurkers, the changes in climate can help determine whether greater London returns to a vast wetland, the Isle of Sky gets Snow in Winter, and whether Jursey can grow Coco Nuts along the beach. In short, our discussions may not affect the price of tea; however, we might find that we have to move the tea plantations instead... As for coffee all bets are off...
Harry, as to your final question, generally economics, simply put we have had to dredge up fossil carbon, as there is insufficient carbon to meet the demands of both technology and the rapidly growing global population... Along with the derft of carbon also comes an issue of a lack of available plant fiber to create clothes, paper, and any number of woven textile materials. Hence, with the identification of long chain carbon molecules that can be economically extracted from liquid fossil carbon and the energy that could be derived from solid fossil carbon we have been able to support the global population multiplying 7 times in 160 years or 4 generations.
The problem appears to be this added carbon in the bio-sphere has some side effects which in combination with other activities by Man seem to be changing the kind of weather most folks should expect or better defined as a change in the climate for most of the thermal zones on the Earth. As to how much influence, that remains up for debate... Hence, why this has been such an enduring discussion.
Again, welcome, I hope you decide to continue to participate, opposing view points are permitted, providing we concentrate on discussing the facts and try not to bring personal attacks into the discussion. Simply put, we like to challenge the povs we have if for no other reason then so we can learn more about our world here. ( I do my best; but, to be honest sometimes it does feel like the blind leading the blind...)
Both welcome to the discussion and to UKww. It is nice to see that there are others that are reserving the right to be skeptical besides the normal crew here. So what attracted you the most, the weather, the pictures or is it te opportunity to share in the discussions here? As usual we do our best to try to have an open an informed discussion, though at times, well you can imagine...
Luckily I consider John a good and true friend so it is nice to share the different povs we have. Contrary to some opinions we do our best to offer a balanced approach though with only a few professionals such as John, Nigel, Dave W., and several others, most here are simply those who have a great interest in natural science and in this Forum, Mans influence on Climate. (Generally it is Climate which defines the weather patterns that can be expected.)
As to some of the background comments of the lurkers, the changes in climate can help determine whether greater London returns to a vast wetland, the Isle of Sky gets Snow in Winter, and whether Jursey can grow Coco Nuts along the beach. In short, our discussions may not affect the price of tea; however, we might find that we have to move the tea plantations instead... As for coffee all bets are off...
Harry, as to your final question, generally economics, simply put we have had to dredge up fossil carbon, as there is insufficient carbon to meet the demands of both technology and the rapidly growing global population... Along with the derft of carbon also comes an issue of a lack of available plant fiber to create clothes, paper, and any number of woven textile materials. Hence, with the identification of long chain carbon molecules that can be economically extracted from liquid fossil carbon and the energy that could be derived from solid fossil carbon we have been able to support the global population multiplying 7 times in 160 years or 4 generations.
The problem appears to be this added carbon in the bio-sphere has some side effects which in combination with other activities by Man seem to be changing the kind of weather most folks should expect or better defined as a change in the climate for most of the thermal zones on the Earth. As to how much influence, that remains up for debate... Hence, why this has been such an enduring discussion.
Again, welcome, I hope you decide to continue to participate, opposing view points are permitted, providing we concentrate on discussing the facts and try not to bring personal attacks into the discussion. Simply put, we like to challenge the povs we have if for no other reason then so we can learn more about our world here. ( I do my best; but, to be honest sometimes it does feel like the blind leading the blind...)
#15
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: 10-September 11
- LocationNr Newport,Shrops.
Posted 20 May 2012 - 01:43
Jursey can grow Coco Nuts along the beach. In short, our duscussions may not affect the price of tea; however, we might find that we have to move the tea plantations instead... As for coffee all bets are off...
Erm, no, mine is really a 99...thanks all![[y]](http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)
Erm, no, mine is really a 99...thanks all
#16
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 20 May 2012 - 02:13
Hey John,
Okay, going further into the bleaching of the Magnesium Oxide. According to a quick reference, forming Magnesite requires both an acidic and a CO2 saturated environment under pressure. Another way, under pressure (such as 3-5 atms of CO2) below 50C, it is possible to form a salt, from a magnesium hydroxide slurry. The MgCO3 salt can decompose to another form; however, this requires temperatures in the 250-620C range (depending on atm pressue).
Point is, the deposits you detailed in your link did not occur on a tailings pile or the beach. It required magmatic temps. and pressures. This returns us to the likely sources of these ionic solutions, it is most likely they came from below not above. (If I have the wrong mineral please advise..., thanx)
Okay, going further into the bleaching of the Magnesium Oxide. According to a quick reference, forming Magnesite requires both an acidic and a CO2 saturated environment under pressure. Another way, under pressure (such as 3-5 atms of CO2) below 50C, it is possible to form a salt, from a magnesium hydroxide slurry. The MgCO3 salt can decompose to another form; however, this requires temperatures in the 250-620C range (depending on atm pressue).
Point is, the deposits you detailed in your link did not occur on a tailings pile or the beach. It required magmatic temps. and pressures. This returns us to the likely sources of these ionic solutions, it is most likely they came from below not above. (If I have the wrong mineral please advise..., thanx)
#17
Posted 20 May 2012 - 07:12
This is a vitally important issue. Global warming is a fact, as anybody in the Canadian Arctic can attest. There are no circular arguments. The CO2 load in the atmosphere is increasing at a rapid rate and once the permafrost starts to melt, as it already has, it has a bad smell , as I can attest from being up north, there will be an increasing release of methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas.At a certain tipping point the greenhouse warming becomes irreversible and we may be approaching that tipping point. Of course the climate has always been changing because of natural processes unrelated to human activities, however, it is not just the change but the rate of change that is the issue and right now it is warming at an unprecedented rate. Politically, I did not share Margaret Thatcher's values. However her training as a chemist and her subsequent research activities gave her a clear vision of what is happening with our atmosphere and we should all be paying close attention, not only to her, but to all of the other distinguished scientists such as Steven Chu who are following this issue closely.
#18
Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:26
ldavidcooke, on 19 May 2012 - 22:31, said:
Hey John,
Simples, the image immediatly preceeding the copper carbonate is obvious a quartz intrusion into fractured iron magnesium with a pyrite deposit that we often see in our similar deposits here. The water and carbonic deposits trapped between the magma and the surface super heat, mixing with the SO with the combination resulting in sulfate salts forming in the super heated vapor chambers.
As to an assertion wrt CO2 chemistry I do not disagree; however, there is no evidence wrt CO2 mixed with rainwater resulting in the copper carbonate. As to the leaching of marine carbonates, these along with high levels of fossil carbon was common in Wales to my understanding. At issue is not the chemistry; but, the lack of support for the conclusion you appear to draw.
(I will review your bleaching evidence further; so far I do not see a case; however, you are the expert... Hence, I submit to your learned disertation; but, I reserve my right to remain scepticle...)
Simples, the image immediatly preceeding the copper carbonate is obvious a quartz intrusion into fractured iron magnesium with a pyrite deposit that we often see in our similar deposits here. The water and carbonic deposits trapped between the magma and the surface super heat, mixing with the SO with the combination resulting in sulfate salts forming in the super heated vapor chambers.
As to an assertion wrt CO2 chemistry I do not disagree; however, there is no evidence wrt CO2 mixed with rainwater resulting in the copper carbonate. As to the leaching of marine carbonates, these along with high levels of fossil carbon was common in Wales to my understanding. At issue is not the chemistry; but, the lack of support for the conclusion you appear to draw.
(I will review your bleaching evidence further; so far I do not see a case; however, you are the expert... Hence, I submit to your learned disertation; but, I reserve my right to remain scepticle...)
Dave, the one immediately before the malachite/chrysocolla lump is a specimen of the very rare copper-zinc sulphate ramsbeckite, occurring as well-formed bottle-green crystals on mudstone. It is "dump-formed", i.e. it has formed by sulphide decomposition within a mine-tip, at the ambient surface temperature. I think we might be talking at crossed purposes here!!!
Cheers - John
#19
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 20 May 2012 - 12:25
Hey John,
Yes, you are correct, I had included both your rare zinc sulfite mineral in the beginning when I was discussing how it was created. (Usually in a highly humid or wet acidic environment at normal pressures.)
Then I expanded the discussion to include your evidence of Bleaching of the Iron Magnesium Dioxide Shist with the crystal filiments growing on the surface, (...looking a bit like the grain structure in an iron meteroite.) It was this sample that appeared to require the hot acidic CO2 rich environment under pressure.)
The main point I was trying to illicit was, it would appear your embedded statement relating to the original mineral being due to CO2 bearing rain did not seem to be very well supported. When in effect it likely had to of formed in either a hydrogen sulfide or sulfuric acid rich atmosphere.
Could you please help me in understanding why that statement was supported by the evidence, I simply do not see it...
Yes, you are correct, I had included both your rare zinc sulfite mineral in the beginning when I was discussing how it was created. (Usually in a highly humid or wet acidic environment at normal pressures.)
Then I expanded the discussion to include your evidence of Bleaching of the Iron Magnesium Dioxide Shist with the crystal filiments growing on the surface, (...looking a bit like the grain structure in an iron meteroite.) It was this sample that appeared to require the hot acidic CO2 rich environment under pressure.)
The main point I was trying to illicit was, it would appear your embedded statement relating to the original mineral being due to CO2 bearing rain did not seem to be very well supported. When in effect it likely had to of formed in either a hydrogen sulfide or sulfuric acid rich atmosphere.
Could you please help me in understanding why that statement was supported by the evidence, I simply do not see it...
#20
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5159
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 20 May 2012 - 12:35
Hey Conrad,
We aren`t arguing the credentials or the education here. Nor are we denying the physical evidence wrt Warming. However, I do believe the conclusions that have been presented as fact, to a large degree, as to the cause of the Warming, are largely under supported. We have a mechanism that discusses a change in the global atmospheric/oceanic heat flow. This change in heat flow does not describe the Warming mechanisms we currently can observe in our atmosphere, to my knowledge.
We aren`t arguing the credentials or the education here. Nor are we denying the physical evidence wrt Warming. However, I do believe the conclusions that have been presented as fact, to a large degree, as to the cause of the Warming, are largely under supported. We have a mechanism that discusses a change in the global atmospheric/oceanic heat flow. This change in heat flow does not describe the Warming mechanisms we currently can observe in our atmosphere, to my knowledge.
