|
Post by icefisher on Mar 16, 2009 17:52:14 GMT
The question I have is where is this heat coming from. Everything the sun emits our direction that is not reflected is absorbed immediately by something and is reemitted. Always has. So as if you say we change the balance causing more heat to be absorbed in the atmosphere once it equals the "normal" temperature of the surface we are back in balance again. Being a US Pacific coast resident, about 3 days a year the water feels warm in relationship to the air. The ground is cold at night and warm during the day. Seems the only potential non-external source of additional heat is through the changing of the globe's albedo so that it absorbs more heat. But why should I get excited about that prospect in view of the north Greenland shore study last year that demonstrated the arctic was ice free about 6,000 years ago indicating the global albedo has fluctuated mightily naturally? In balance the earth absorbs approx 235W/m^2 on average from the sun as shortwave radiation, and matches this by radiating 235W/m^2 of longwave radiation. A proportion of the longwave radiation comes from the atmosphere - each layer in the atmosphere radiates an amount proportional to the 4th power of its temperature (in Kelvin). If you double the amount of CO2 throughout the atmosphere, then some of the radiation (about 4W/m^2 or 2% of the original amount) that would have gone into space and cooled the earth is instead reabsorbed. This imbalance causes a gradual build-up of heat. The balance is restored when the atmosphere is warmed sufficiently to overcome the absorption by the extra CO2. In short, the warming comes from the fact that the earth's ability to keep to a stable temperature by losing energy to space is interrupted. But as the earth warms it emits more radiation to space. The warming stops when the earth recovers its ability to lose the same amount of energy as it is receiving. But would that not happen almost instantaneously. How long does it take to heat up some CO2?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 16, 2009 19:51:39 GMT
The direction is also affected by the difference in concentration between the atmosphere and what is disolved in the surface ocean. Due to atmospheric co2 increasing sharply the direction of flow has been from atmosphere to ocean, despite a warming of the oceans. But do we really know this socold? Yes the ocean is absorbing co2, it's acting as a sink. pH has continued to drop in the past 100 years. Besides if the oceans are net emitters of co2 and humans are net emitters of co2 then there's a massive amount of co2 going missing each year. The atmosphere is only gaining about 15 billion tons co2 per year, humans emit about 30 billion tons. If the oceans also emit say 10 billion tons net then that's 40 billion tons into the atmosphere, but only 15 billion of it stays there.... There are probably a lot more detailed and also simple reasons how we know the oceans are net absorbers of co2 right now. In any case I see no papers or discussion from any experts about this being possibly incorrect, which would surely exist if it was uncertain.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 16, 2009 19:54:19 GMT
But would that not happen almost instantaneously. How long does it take to heat up some CO2? It's not just he co2, the upper ocean, land and atmosphere would also have to heat up and it's the oceans that cause the largest delay.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 16, 2009 23:45:05 GMT
But would that not happen almost instantaneously. How long does it take to heat up some CO2? It's not just he co2, the upper ocean, land and atmosphere would also have to heat up and it's the oceans that cause the largest delay. it's the oceans that cause the largest delay. Like "heat in the pipeline" that doesn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 16, 2009 23:48:15 GMT
But do we really know this socold? Yes the ocean is absorbing co2, it's acting as a sink. pH has continued to drop in the past 100 years. Besides if the oceans are net emitters of co2 and humans are net emitters of co2 then there's a massive amount of co2 going missing each year. The atmosphere is only gaining about 15 billion tons co2 per year, humans emit about 30 billion tons. If the oceans also emit say 10 billion tons net then that's 40 billion tons into the atmosphere, but only 15 billion of it stays there.... There are probably a lot more detailed and also simple reasons how we know the oceans are net absorbers of co2 right now. In any case I see no papers or discussion from any experts about this being possibly incorrect, which would surely exist if it was uncertain. pH has continued to drop in the past 100 years. And in 3500 years it will be ? Did they ever find the missing CO2 sink? Maybe it is hiding with the missing heat.....
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2009 6:04:44 GMT
pH has continued to drop in the past 100 years. Besides if the oceans are net emitters of co2 and humans are net emitters of co2 then there's a massive amount of co2 going missing each year. The atmosphere is only gaining about 15 billion tons co2 per year, humans emit about 30 billion tons. If the oceans also emit say 10 billion tons net then that's 40 billion tons into the atmosphere, but only 15 billion of it stays there.... There are probably a lot more detailed and also simple reasons how we know the oceans are net absorbers of co2 right now. In any case I see no papers or discussion from any experts about this being possibly incorrect, which would surely exist if it was uncertain. Thats not an answer socold. You are leaving out a major absorber of CO2. . . . namely plants. You can't just sit there and claim 25 billion tons are missing so it must be being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans absorb CO2 or plankton would not grow but plant biomasses are increasing on land, particularly where those glaciers used to be. Crop growth is accelerated with farmland yields per acre rising. Until you get reliable estimates for that you are just guessing.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 18, 2009 6:50:36 GMT
Old Soc says: "Thereare probably a lot more detailed and also simple reasons how we know the oceans are net absorbers of co2 right now. In any case I see no papers or discussion from any experts about this being possibly incorrect, which would surely exist if it was uncertain." Jeez, Old Soc, you've outdone yourself, today. Your fallacy-of-the-day is called "arguing from ignorance" and it's utter nonsense. Your arguments in this thread are getting weaker and weaker.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 18, 2009 23:55:01 GMT
pH has continued to drop in the past 100 years. Besides if the oceans are net emitters of co2 and humans are net emitters of co2 then there's a massive amount of co2 going missing each year. The atmosphere is only gaining about 15 billion tons co2 per year, humans emit about 30 billion tons. If the oceans also emit say 10 billion tons net then that's 40 billion tons into the atmosphere, but only 15 billion of it stays there.... There are probably a lot more detailed and also simple reasons how we know the oceans are net absorbers of co2 right now. In any case I see no papers or discussion from any experts about this being possibly incorrect, which would surely exist if it was uncertain. Thats not an answer socold. You are leaving out a major absorber of CO2. . . . namely plants. You can't just sit there and claim 25 billion tons are missing so it must be being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans absorb CO2 or plankton would not grow but plant biomasses are increasing on land, particularly where those glaciers used to be. Crop growth is accelerated with farmland yields per acre rising. Until you get reliable estimates for that you are just guessing. The ocean has been a net absorber for decades - the pH drop indicates this. And which ever way you cut it human activity is responsible for the co2 rise over recent decades. As we are emitting twice as much co2 into the atmosphere than is needed to account for the rise, it's simple accounting that if we hadn't emitted that co2 there wouldn't have been enough entering the atmosphere to cause co2 to rise.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 19, 2009 0:58:27 GMT
Thats not an answer socold. You are leaving out a major absorber of CO2. . . . namely plants. You can't just sit there and claim 25 billion tons are missing so it must be being absorbed by the oceans. The oceans absorb CO2 or plankton would not grow but plant biomasses are increasing on land, particularly where those glaciers used to be. Crop growth is accelerated with farmland yields per acre rising. Until you get reliable estimates for that you are just guessing. The ocean has been a net absorber for decades - the pH drop indicates this. And which ever way you cut it human activity is responsible for the co2 rise over recent decades. As we are emitting twice as much co2 into the atmosphere than is needed to account for the rise, it's simple accounting that if we hadn't emitted that co2 there wouldn't have been enough entering the atmosphere to cause co2 to rise. The only study I saw suggests that: Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075). Is that important? I don't know but you had about 150 years of cooling oceans during the earlier part of that period and 100 years of warming oceans. Its no doubt a high probability that the drop in ocean pH is both recent and at least part anthropogenic but that study certainly does not establish it so. The Ocean will need to absorb 15 times more than it absorbed in the last 250 years to become as neutral as distilled water and 35 times as much to become as acidic as rainwater. Further these are acids necessary to life so its way premature to suggest the outcome is going to be bad. I think you have to have a few screws loose to think that all changes to the planet by mankind are bad. In fact I would suggest that it might only take about 3 or 4 weeks of experience with the old planet to completely convince you of that. . . .only problem is you probably would not survive the experience since its probable in the words of one wise sage. . . .you know so much that just isn't so. One would think one would demand a bit more evidence before simultaneously pushing the panic button, pulling the catasthrophy brake lever, and screaming fire. . . .just how cheap have our freedoms become?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 19, 2009 21:34:47 GMT
The pH decrease indicates that the oceans have absorbed more co2 than they have emitted. That mens they can't be a source of the recent co2 rise.
The recent co2 rise is caused by human emissions. it's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 19, 2009 22:50:49 GMT
The pH decrease indicates that the oceans have absorbed more co2 than they have emitted. That mens they can't be a source of the recent co2 rise. The recent co2 rise is caused by human emissions. it's that simple. Well thats not necessarily true socold. You can't argue from ignorance. But lets look a purely hypothetical example for a moment and you tell me if you can find any papers whatsoever to refute it. We have had over x number of years a 10 parts/million increase in atmospheric CO2 . Where did it come from? 1. Lets say a net 10 came from warming oceans 2. another 10 came from manmade emissions 3. 10 exited the atmosphere from increased plant growth So my question is besides the arguing from ignorance fallacy you seem so fond of, do you have anything in the way of science to refute any of the 3 premises above for the latest or recent 30 parts per million of CO2 observed in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by heatsink on Mar 20, 2009 0:13:37 GMT
The pH decrease indicates that the oceans have absorbed more co2 than they have emitted. That mens they can't be a source of the recent co2 rise. The recent co2 rise is caused by human emissions. it's that simple. I'm not sure I follow the logic. It seems you said that since the oceans did not emit excess CO2 over the past century then it must be anthropogenic.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 20, 2009 0:26:15 GMT
The pH decrease indicates that the oceans have absorbed more co2 than they have emitted. That mens they can't be a source of the recent co2 rise. The recent co2 rise is caused by human emissions. it's that simple. Well thats not necessarily true socold. You can't argue from ignorance. But lets look a purely hypothetical example for a moment and you tell me if you can find any papers whatsoever to refute it. We have had over x number of years a 10 parts/million increase in atmospheric CO2 . Where did it come from? 1. Lets say a net 10 came from warming oceans 2. another 10 came from manmade emissions 3. 10 exited the atmosphere from increased plant growth So my question is besides the arguing from ignorance fallacy you seem so fond of, do you have anything in the way of science to refute any of the 3 premises above for the latest or recent 30 parts per million of CO2 observed in the atmosphere? Well first of course to repeat that the ocean has been a net absorber co2 over that period. In addition we've emitted 60ppm equivalent of co2 in this time period. That's more than enough to cover the rise. Without that human addition, how could there be a rise? If we assume your #2 and #3 are correct we have: 1. 60ppm net from humans 2. 10ppm net from the oceans 3. 10ppm net from plants If that was the case co2 in the atmosphere should have risen 80ppm, not 30ppm. Even if we include a hypothetical massive sink for #4 to balance it to add up to 30ppm: 1. 60ppm net from humans 2. 10ppm net from the oceans 3. 10ppm net from plants 4. -50ppm net from hypothetical sink = 30ppm It's still the case that without human emissions in that list there would be no co2 rise.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 20, 2009 1:37:10 GMT
Well thats not necessarily true socold. You can't argue from ignorance. But lets look a purely hypothetical example for a moment and you tell me if you can find any papers whatsoever to refute it. We have had over x number of years a 10 parts/million increase in atmospheric CO2 . Where did it come from? 1. Lets say a net 10 came from warming oceans 2. another 10 came from manmade emissions 3. 10 exited the atmosphere from increased plant growth So my question is besides the arguing from ignorance fallacy you seem so fond of, do you have anything in the way of science to refute any of the 3 premises above for the latest or recent 30 parts per million of CO2 observed in the atmosphere? Well first of course to repeat that the ocean has been a net absorber co2 over that period. In addition we've emitted 60ppm equivalent of co2 in this time period. That's more than enough to cover the rise. Without that human addition, how could there be a rise? If we assume your #2 and #3 are correct we have: 1. 60ppm net from humans 2. 10ppm net from the oceans 3. 10ppm net from plants If that was the case co2 in the atmosphere should have risen 80ppm, not 30ppm. Even if we include a hypothetical massive sink for #4 to balance it to add up to 30ppm: 1. 60ppm net from humans 2. 10ppm net from the oceans 3. 10ppm net from plants 4. -50ppm net from hypothetical sink = 30ppm It's still the case that without human emissions in that list there would be no co2 rise. I said I wasn't looking for your guesses socold. I asked if you can find anything at all in the way of a scientific study that suggests any of those premises are false. And it isn't clear what period of time you are talking about, I picked a hypothetical period where ghg rose 10 parts per million and a hypothetical breakdown of sources and uses of CO2. You have come up with nada so far.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 20, 2009 5:38:58 GMT
The pH decrease indicates that the oceans have absorbed more co2 than they have emitted. That mens they can't be a source of the recent co2 rise. The recent co2 rise is caused by human emissions. it's that simple. No, the PH decrease indicates that the ratio of H+ and OH- has changed It's entirely possible that there are simply some SO2 rich volcanoes producing like crazy. It would oxidize and form sulfuric acid...which means even tiny amounts would have a far greater affect than large increases of CO2. Alternatively (or probably in conjunction with) the fact that it's cooled recently means the oceans are simply absorbing more of the CO2. Anyway, the PH of the oceans always changes with the way the temperature fluctuates. Granted, some of this would be "our fault" but the increases are trivial. The experiments they do that show degradation of shells require absurdly high amounts of CO2 that we have no ability to add
|
|