What Do We Think About Climate Change

"Eco-mentalists are stupid.", said Jeremy Clarkson, builder of Toyota or TOYBOATA Hilux

 

I suppose when you can't say anything meaningful there is always name calling to fall back on.

 

It was a joke. Get it? It was on Top Gear just this week. Don't make it a truism. Geez.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize you meant it as a joke. I tend toward rather literal thinking, and sometimes miss the jokes.

 

well that was easily predicted

I believe I mentioned to the readers to be watching for how long it would take the deniers to begin the rude and insulting portion or there failed diatribe with out newest guest here.

not long eh

the simple truth is that the more staunch the denier the easier it is to find flaws in the diatribe and the harder they have to struggle to justify something that is simply not found in the literature. Frustration culminating in anger, insulting, lying, and misrepresentation would appear to be a common enough response of the deniers that it could be predicted without to much trouble

 

Jimbo, I understand that the thread is heated, and feeling are flying low.
Everybody want to be right and this is the nature of the human being.
And I hope it stay thaat way, because when we will be not able to express our true feeling, it will means we will be not anymore in a democratic process of exchange.
But:

It is perhaps a little harsh. I didn't find the other post needed for some strong word like this.
Anyway, I enjoy the thread, full of interresting things, full of non interresting things, but at the end of the day we have a great platform to slam eachother
Daniel

 

There have been some who say that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming, rather than CO2 being the cause of warming. Actually, the ocean/CO2/atmosphere/temperature system is a positive feedback system, so when either CO2 or the temperature goes up it tends to make the other rise also.

However, that is not what I came here to talk about. I would like to discuss whether the rise in ocean temperatures is the likely cause of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. There are a number of ways one could approach this problem, and I will outline one of them.

As has been correctly pointed out on this thread, increasing temperatures will drive CO2 out of solution and into the atmosphere. This is a result of the negative temperature coefficient for CO2 solubility.

Let us assume that the average ocean temperature is about 15 C. (I don't know the true number, but this is probably not too far off.) Here is a link to some solubility data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)


From the table we see that if we hold the CO2 partial pressure constant, the solubility decreases by 3.2% per C.

Let us assume that the atmosphere and the ocean are approximately in equilibrium with respect to CO2.

Let us also assume that global warming (whatever the cause) has produced a temperature increase of 1C in recent decades, let's say over the last 100 to 150 years or so. (I am not sure what the real number is, but it is not likely much different from 1 C.)

This would mean that the solubility of CO2 would have dropped by about 3.2% as a result of warming.

Let's make the assumption that the amount of CO2 in the ocean is large compared to the amount of CO2 in the air. This implies that if some CO2 is driven from the ocean the oceanic CO2 concentration won't change much. In other words, the atmospheric CO2 will do most of the adjusting, and the oceanic concentration will change only slightly.

Therefore, if there is a change in the CO2 solubility of a little greater than -3%, then to maintain equilibrium the atmospheric CO2 pressure would have to increase by a little over 3%.

In other words, a change of oceanic temperature of 1 C would drive an increase in atmospheric CO2 pressure by about 3%. This would produce a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 3%.

How does this compare to the actual increase in atmospheric CO2 during the current warming period? The comparison is not good. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 36%, but the temperature/solubility effect can only account for a change of about 3%, or in other words, 90% of the increase in CO2 would remain unaccounted for if we were to assume that temperature changes were the main driver of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Therefore, the increase in global temperature is not likely the cause for increasing CO2 levels.

The analysis above is somewhat oversimplified. The chemistry of dissolved CO2 is actually rather complex. It involves at least five major species, carbonate, bicarbonate, carbonic acid, free dissolved CO2, and hydrogen ions. There are four equilibrium constants connecting the concentrations of those species. There are some other complications as well. However, I believe that the analysis given above likely captures much of the most important stuff, and a more complete analysis is not likely to produce major changes in the conclusions.

 

It is still all bull-squat and that's no joke.

 

I'm sorry, Bos but I consider you people the deniers and I believe I told our newest guest here to F off shortly after his first post. Only a Nam draftee would not be proud to fully accept a heartfelt "thanks" for service, Troy. I guess we should say "thanks for not going AWOL"

 

Some interesting excerpts:

See Jeffrey Glassman's "THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE"

Further evidence of both the inconvenient temperature spike in the 1940's and it's accompanying CO2 spike of ~390ppm, which the warmers deny ever happened, despite measurements taken at the time, and ice core data. This is part of the ice core data that is routinely thrown out as 'spurious'.

Jimbo

 

Your analysis is flawed, because you seem to assume a parity in the fraction of change between the two sinks (ocean and atmosphere) rather than a proportionality, which is actually the case. The estimate of dissolved CO2 in the oceans is ~40,000 Million Metric Tons, while the atmosphere is said to contain only ~750 MMT . A 3% change (outgassing) of the dissolved oceanic CO2 would amount to a release of ~1200 MMT gaseous CO2, a HUGE amount compared to the atmospheric concentration, easily capable of doubling the atmospheric concentration in the given example.

Jimbo

 

I wasn't drafted, Mark. But I served with a lot of damn fine men who were, and some of them didn't come home. They deserve better than to be dumped on by a piece of work like you.


What's your next cheap shot going to be? Telling us, "Hitler was a veteran, too"?

 

Just joking,

What “PhD” Really Stands for…

* Patiently hoping for a Degree
* Piled higher and Deeper
* Professorship? hah! Dream on!
* Please hire. Desperate.
* Physiologically Deficient
* Pour him (or her) a Drink
* Philosophically Disturbed
* Probably headed for Divorce
* Pathetically hopeless Dweeb
* Probably heavily in Debt
* Parents have Doubts
* Professors had Doubts
* Pheromone Deprived
* Probably hard to Describe
* Patiently headed Downhill…
* Permanent head Damage
* Pulsating heaving Disaster?
* Pretty homely Dork
* Potential heavy Drinker
* Professional hamburger Dispenser
* Post hole Digger
* Professional hair Dresser
* Progressive heart Doctor
* Piano hauling Done
* Pro at hurling Darts
* Professional hugger of Dames
* Private house Detective
* Pizza hut Driver
* Pretty heavily Depressed
* Pretty heavy Diploma
* Promised hell Down-the-road
* Processed here, Dammit

 

A George Carlin joke

Thanks to the sharp eyes of a Minnesota man, it is possible that two
identical snowflakes may finally have been observed. While out
snowmobiling, Oley Skotchgaard noticed snowflake that looked familiar to
him. Searching his memory, he realized it was identical to a snowflake he
had seen as a child in Vermont. Weather experts, while excited, caution
that the match-up will be difficult to verify.

 

sloweddy, show us the insult in that quote? Show us exactly what is that made you make that comment? Which part was so insulting to you? Detail please.

If you can.

And you can't. (there's one for you, if you can discover it...)

jajajajaaaa.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's hundred pesos that you can't.

As for the syntax, who gives a **** about my syntax...? I don't. I am spanish speaking person. I can **** up the anglo syntax any way I feel like. The problem is when YOU do that... You, the genius of superhuman proportions. Almost as small as marcus the smartest mejicano ever to walk on Alascan soil...which is why frijolero is a methodist by political persuasion, rather than choice.