Murderers, Tyrants & Madmen - a response to Heartland
Posted 20 May 2012 - 17:45
Ah, now I see the difference in our references. In my lab tests we tried to replicate the environment,the combination of acids, (nitric, sulphuric and sodum chloride) appeared to dissolve the shales fairly effectively. ( Not dissimilar to the "fracting" mix being used here in the States to access more natural gas... ) That much of the mudstones you appeared to offer appeared to be of the expansive variety, it would suggest that the conditions within the rock itself were sufficent to ellcit the bleaching action. With the addition of limitations of sulfides in this type of shale eould seem to suggest that the leaching would have been a progressive action, except in the cases of the minerals such as your sulfuric, zinc depositions.
As long as the blend of available elements could support both the oxidation and reduction of the series, my pov can easily be supported. As opposed to the 380ppm of CO2 of today. with the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 from 250ppm in 1750 being the main cause of the bleaching of the mudstones.. That most of the increase was is the last 50 years and yet most of the bleaching had to of occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution, there is little support for the addition of anthropogenic sources for the CO2 involved in the bleaching of iron magnesium dominated silicon/carbonate mudstone.
Posted 20 May 2012 - 18:03
Cheers - John
Posted 20 May 2012 - 23:51
You still need carbonate ions to form carbonate minerals in the secondary mineralisation process though! In veins where there were no pre-existing primary carbonate minerals and the wall-rocks are non-calcareous, the scope starts to get a bit narrow! You have to ask yourself from where has that carbon originated! Remember that low concentrations of carbonate ions in water (i.e. "hard water") can, over thousands of years, lead to some impressive things happening - think also of karstic landscapes and their amazing subterranean formations. Were sulphate ions involved, it'd be a poor show - as you can demonstrate for yourself, by dropping a chunk of limestone into a bucket of 1% sulphuric acid and examining it some 10 years later: this is the exact reason why static limestone pebble-beds do a poor job of deacidifying acid mine discharges. A rind of calcium sulphate forms around every single piece of limestone and as calcium sulphate is barely soluble in water it forms a protective shield, protecting the limestone from further useful interaction with the sulphuric acid. Carbonic acid is far more important - if it wasn't, the incredible mineral specimens from Tsumeb, Namibia, simply wouldn't have ever formed in the first place!
As for where I am... in your excerpt above, you state that the chemistry does not support sulfite hydrogenation of mudstones or calcium carbonate bearing rock, yet we hsve clear erosion of lime based stone via this vehicle: CaCO 3 (s) + H 2 SO 4 (aq) CaSO 4 (aq) + CO 2 (g) + H 2 O (l) I have seen claims that the natural PH of unpolluted rain is 5.7. In my measures that was only found in the downwind measurments of coal burning power plants. In Florida I rarely found a PH lower then 7 and then rarely saw Carbonic acid in the samples. If the same rain was falling on the ocean as I am seeing on land then I do not see support for acidification via CO2. Going further as to the weathering we see in the cities such as Venice, Naples, Los Angles, New York, London or Berlin or Paris even the high levels of both CO and CO2 from transportation do not seem to be the primary weathering agent, it is sulfates. Going further yet, the weathering of glass panes of unbroken 100 year old windows is generally via two factors, one glass is not a solid; but, a very viscous liquid; the second is the nitric acid in the wv contributing to its loss of smoothness.
What I think the biggest misunderstanding we have is every chemical breakdown of mudstone I have ever seen suggests that it as is shale are a form of sedimentry limestone the main differences being the silica content, apparently you do not share in that definition? Hence, why it would seem we have been at loggerheads over nothing... As to the issue as we initially started off 2 pages ago, I am not seeing Carbonic acid today in most rain fall, hence, I am confused as to why the mine tailing were considered evidence of carbonic oxydation today?
Posted 21 May 2012 - 00:02
This post has been edited by rosskesava: 21 May 2012 - 00:03
Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:04
Nasa on this, the so-called "slow carbon cycle" - most call it more accurately the "carbonate-silicate cycle": http://earthobservat...Cycle/page2.php
And why the process is so fundamentally important to life on Earth: http://burro.astr.cw...goldilocks.html
Mudstone may indeed contain major carbonate - hence the geological term "calcareous mudstone" - but it can also contain hardly any or none. The slaty mudstones of Wales are in fact pretty clean when it comes to carbonate - think about it - if they were carbonate-rich then there would be no Welsh roofing-slate industry! (mudstones from the Cambrian through to the Silurian have all been quarried for slate where the cleavage is sufficiently well-developed and structural disruption at a happy minimum) - as slate full of carbonate would weather to all sorts of horrible beige shades over a few decades instead of the neat, uniform greys that decorate the roofs everywhere in Wales. The carbonate-silicate cycle takes place over periods longer than the history of Mankind.
Cheers - John
Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:15
My feeling is that whenever natural processes are occurring that there are numerous primary and secondary causes contributing to the changes. However, it's also the case that one or two primary factors can strongly outweigh all of the secondary processes that are taking place. It's as somebody mentioned earlier, when somebody has been a chain smoker for 40 years and then gets lung cancer, the primary cause, based on present knowledge, is almost certainly the smoking that caused the illness. Based on present knowledge and probabilities it seems reasonable to deduce that. Yes, smoking so much was the cause, even though there is a very low probability that other secondary processes were really responsible.Likewise, somebody has a bad road accident. It turns out that they were drunk, and most people would conclude that that was the primary cause.
I acknowledge the points that you are making about heat flow etc, but the rising anthropomorphic increase in atmospheric CO2 does very much look like the factor that is principally responsible for the present global warming and as this global warming proceeds it will probably have dire effects, particularly in some areas of the globe more than others. Amongst the First Nations peoples in Canada there is a saying to the effect that whatever we do, we need to evaluate the consequences, not only to our own generation, but also to the generations that will follow us, even unto the 7th generation, as their saying goes.
I agree that there must be all kinds of secondary processes at work too, and these complicate the picture enormously. However, many, even most, of those best informed in this area of climate and atmospheric science are identifying the the continuing anthropomorphic release of CO2 , from combustion of fossil fuels, as being the principal driving factor behind the present ongoing global warming.
I feel particularly worked up about this because here in Canada we have a government that denies global warming and the possible destruction of atmospheric ozone etc. It even refuses to look at the evidence and it achieves this by closing down most of Canada's environmental monitoring agencies and firing the environmental scientists. When I look at the people and interests who either don't want to think about possible damage to the environment or those who deliberately fund global warming denial outfits, they always seem to have some strong connection to the oil and gas industries and related financial sectors and their only interest is in big profits now and forget about all of the rest.
Beyond this, yes we must continue the science so as to achieve a more and more complete picture of the complex processes that are taking place on our planet, our only home.
Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:40
No, when you clarified that the bleaching was likely not from recent exposure we were good. That earlier pre-mineing (roughly 54mya prior) raiinfall likely provided the carbonates the issue was resolved. However, it still remains that there is insufficient recent history that provides sufficient support wrt CO2 as a primary drver of Warming. Given, that if you remove the CO2 that the Warming trend does not happen in models does little to suggest the mechanism of warming in light of alternative atmospheric heat flow.
Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:47
I believe it is a case of being an Ostrich, politically in Canada. They are loath to the consequences if it is true, just consider all of that coastline they would now have to patrol to protect their land rights. Add to that the one primary natural resource they can market other then agriculture. They apparently forget they have the prime ability as does Russia to be the worlds sources of natural plant fibers. With that in combination and their global hertiage of their population they have the opportunity to be world leaders. What seems funny is that for all that potential they are hiding their heads in the "sand"...
Posted 21 May 2012 - 11:48
In truth, I am a poor example of the sceptical core as I am not formally trained. That this discussion has run as long as it has and became as technical as it did goes to suggest that even between friends misunderstanding occurs. If you get so frustrated that you feel your pov is either dismissed or disgarded as irrelavent you are likely to react as opposed to seek clarification. This is the conversation that needs to be taken up by professionals in my humble opinion.
With so many degrees of freedom of both the distribution of heat and carbon uptake it would appear we may be missing something. With the combination of organic uptake response and as John has patiently tried to suggest the dilution of CO2 in wv certainly supports the more rapid uptake, of the roughly 100-103Gt of carbon, in a world that emitts roughly 97-100Gt naturally, today!
Add in anthropogenic sources resulting in roughly 7.5Gt added carbon to the atmosphere, including the reduction in natural uptake on the order of 2-3Gt annually due to post-1650 environmental destruction (both natural and Man-made). That there is roughly 104-108Gt of carbon being emitted in a world with a 97-100Gt carbon uptake does play a part. (Though prior to 1650 there was roughly 4Mkm^2 more of organic uptake on land...) However, as the anthropogenic source levels of CO2 at 7.5Gt are only a recent imbalance (since @ 1950, >3Gt/yr), that does not support the change seen between 1700 and roughly the mid-20th century (<3Gt/yr, Avg @ 1.2Gt/yr). The point, this is but one of roughly 12 identified contributors both for and against global warming. (Re-edited in the vain attempt at improving my accuracy...)
So before I get pounded for being a denier please let us discuss the facts and the reality of the sources and sinks of the contributors rather then try to defend positions or povs. If after we agree to the science such that it can be observed that the facts lay somewhere between the extremes of current opinion, then its time for everyone to accept the truth rather then continue to go on and off subject in attempts to protect a pov that has so many degrees of freedom that in truth you could not hold them in a bucket for the holes... Reorienting on establishing direct cause and effect is going to be the only way forward, everything else is an ill wind...
(Oh and yes, models do play a part, they can show the direction of change and help suggest a value for the mid-range of change; however, they can not create a virtural world as there are simply too many variables to manage, (A bit like the computer required to answer the question "...and everything", wrt the Douglas Adams series..., (He was off by a mere 40 of the possible infinity of numbers,... Now, was that two (finite unique or divisive units), too (increasing or additional units) or to (the direction of a unit...?)) ...me thinks Hamlet may have been wiser then the mice...
Posted 22 May 2012 - 21:34
The Guardian's perhaps the classic example of such battles though of course people join in on there from all over the world. But getting involved with Skeptical Science was a good choice for me: if I suggest a topic I then typically need to read 20-odd papers, perhaps querying the authors if I need clarification, then submitting the post to internal review, in which any of my cock-ups WRT the science get found and illuminated. The idiom is always to accurately and fairly report where the science is at at the time. It has certainly increased my reading volume by two orders of magnitude - and has anybody got a filing-cabinet they don't want
I cannot fully appreciate PDFs on-screen - I need good old hard copy, a highlight-pen and a biro to scrawl notes/potential questions. So the bulging folders build up...
But delving ever deeper into the literature as a member of SkS has to beat playing pointless word-tennis with some Tea-Partier or other! And the nice thing is that I can focus on the science a bit more than the goddam politics!
Cheers - John
Posted 22 May 2012 - 22:04
I try to keep an open mind... As for a battle of words, concur whole-heartedly. My choice has nearly always been lets look at the empirical evidence of the processes being described, that support the theory being shared. I have usually figured if the goes-inters and the goes-outers can be explained by one and only one process, we have a winner!
When I see multiple processes and a lack of empirical evidence supporting the prescribed processes, I become concerned. Its when those around me go rushing headlong off the bridge..., I stop and look about trying to find what suggested a gentle landing...
Certainly it can be as simple as I missed something everyone else has got; however, most times I find that movement in a certain direction becomes similar to what happens in a mob. So I get sticky feet, until I get a logical, supported answer... (Hence, Wishy-Washy is not quite correct...)
As always if science is under discussion I will be "Johnny on the Spot", at least for the moment... The differences in opinion are my obligation, the science is the nectar. Hopefully, here we can find a medium where both can be shared and growth in both directions can occur.