Yes, Back to Global Warming

[Wild Cobra]

The one thing that absolutely, positively, keeps me a denier of us being the primary cause of Global warming is one very simple fact.

Someone please... please... explain how I'm wrong.

Carbon cycle models vary at having us output from 5.5 GtC to 8 GtC of carbon in the form of CO2.

All carbon cycle models maintain an equilibrium of about 50:1 carbon in the ocean to the atmosphere. The model out of wiki:



OK... A little insight to this model and any other. There is about 2 GtC of carbon per ppm. The above model represents about 380 ppm at 750 GtC. Close enough for this debate to use a simple 2 GtC per ppm. That means pre industrialized carbon would be about 560 GtC for 280 ppm. If you must be more precise, use 552.6 GtC. I don't care. What ever realistic value from whatever model you pick, my point is valid.

OK. Now since the equilibrium is about 50:1 (51 parts) for simplicity, I will use 49:1 (50 parts.) At the high end of models, we have 8 GtC annually of anthropogenic carbon. At the 49:1 ratio, the oceans would absorb 7.84 GtC and 0.16 GtC would remain in the atmosphere. At that rate, it would take 1250 years. Yes 1250 years! It would take that long with all other conditions equal, for man made CO2 to increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

Now... 2004 (model) - 1700 (postindustrial) = 304 years. Not only are we a factor of four short, the rate of 8 GtC per year is less in past years.

Please. Tell me how we are the cause of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

For those with an understanding of Henry’s Law, and math, consider this:

[clambake]

tell that skanky ho to hurry up with my pot stickers.

[Wild Cobra]

What? Nobody going to tell me how I'm wrong?

Winehole?

Random?

Come on. You guys can do the math and correct me, right?

[LockBeard]

Maybe they finally realize it's all been one giant tool to transfer wealth to the international governments.

[Winehole23]

What? Nobody going to tell me how I'm wrong?

Winehole?

Random?

Come on. You guys can do the math and correct me, right?

WH23 is a confirmed AGW agnostic and math-impaired to boot. I'll watch from the sidelines.

[Winehole23]

Maybe they finally realize it's all been one giant tool to transfer wealth to the international governments.

Will there be enough left over for the sinister plans to socialize every facet of everyday life if we continue to subsidize financial risk? The ultimate beneficiary isn't government but our financial oligarchs. Anticipated outlay on AGW is peanuts compared to the epochal transfer of wealth in the bailout.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The one thing that absolutely, positively, keeps me a denier of us being the primary cause of Global warming is one very simple fact.

Someone please... please... explain how I'm wrong.

Carbon cycle models vary at having us output from 5.5 GtC to 8 GtC of carbon in the form of CO2.

All carbon cycle models maintain an equilibrium of about 50:1 carbon in the ocean to the atmosphere. The model out of wiki:



OK... A little insight to this model and any other. There is about 2 GtC of carbon per ppm. The above model represents about 380 ppm at 750 GtC. Close enough for this debate to use a simple 2 GtC per ppm. That means pre industrialized carbon would be about 560 GtC for 280 ppm. If you must be more precise, use 552.6 GtC. I don't care. What ever realistic value from whatever model you pick, my point is valid.

OK. Now since the equilibrium is about 50:1 (51 parts) for simplicity, I will use 49:1 (50 parts.) At the high end of models, we have 8 GtC annually of anthropogenic carbon. At the 49:1 ratio, the oceans would absorb 7.84 GtC and 0.16 GtC would remain in the atmosphere. At that rate, it would take 1250 years. Yes 1250 years! It would take that long with all other conditions equal, for man made CO2 to increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

Now... 2004 (model) - 1700 (postindustrial) = 304 years. Not only are we a factor of four short, the rate of 8 GtC per year is less in past years.

Please. Tell me how we are the cause of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

For those with an understanding of Henry’s Law, and math, consider this:

Who has ever stated that man is the 'cause' of CO2? Man's activities increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you prove that we don't add to the problem?

[RandomGuy]

What? Nobody going to tell me how I'm wrong?

Winehole?

Random?

Come on. You guys can do the math and correct me, right?

Oddly enough I was looking at a graph of "Atlantic Basin Storm Activity (1930-2008)" not more than five minutes ago.

The regression line for the last 78 years shows a rather steady upwards tick.

How does solar activity or soot explain that?

I would point out that overall warming trends, providing more thermal energy for storms that draw energy from seawater, would be a plausible explanation for this observed data.

[RandomGuy]

OK. Now since the equilibrium is about 50:1 (51 parts) for simplicity, I will use 49:1 (50 parts.) At the high end of models, we have 8 GtC annually of anthropogenic carbon. At the 49:1 ratio, the oceans would absorb 7.84 GtC and 0.16 GtC would remain in the atmosphere. At that rate, it would take 1250 years. Yes 1250 years! It would take that long with all other conditions equal, for man made CO2 to increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

Personally, I am beginning to suspect that you have over-simplified your thinking and calculations. Carbon and CO2 processes globally are a *wee* bit more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation, aren't they?

[101A]

Oddly enough I was looking at a graph of "Atlantic Basin Storm Activity (1930-2008)" not more than five minutes ago.

The regression line for the last 78 years shows a rather steady upwards tick.

How does solar activity or soot explain that?

I would point out that overall warming trends, providing more thermal energy for storms that draw energy from seawater, would be a plausible explanation for this observed data.

Sunspot activity in the lowest IN A CENTURY!!!!

We better find out what we're doing to cause the Sun to extinguish soon, or we're in a LOT of trouble!! It tracks pretty consistently with the number of golf courses installed....we should probably put a moratorium on any new links until, well, forever if necessary.

[RandomGuy]

Sunspot activity in the lowest IN A CENTURY!!!!

We better find out what we're doing to cause the Sun to extinguish soon, or we're in a LOT of trouble!! It tracks pretty consistently with the number of golf courses installed....we should probably put a moratorium on any new links until, well, forever if necessary.

Strawman, meet 101A, 101A meet strawman.

You are better than that.

[RandomGuy]

[RandomGuy]

The majority of people, including myself are unable to really, truly evaluate the scientific evidence.

So we have to rely on actual scientists, the majority of which have come to the conclusion that we are probably significantly affecting climate, with an overall warming trend, as evidenced by warming trends at both poles.

There is some honest skepticism, and, from what I have personally read, a lot of dishonest skepticism about the science.

Leaving us with a number of options that essentially boil down to:

Do nothing.
Do something.

If you watch the video, and all of the others where the guy fleshes out his arguments and patiently addresses all of the "denier/skeptic" arguments, one is STILL left with the only real, truly logical, course of action:

Do something. In terms of mitigating known risks, the downside of doing something and being wrong about global warming, economic disruption, is still worse than the downside of doing nothing and being wrong, i.e. massive global upheaval.

[johnsmith]

Not that it's "only" nerds that have glasses, but it's that "all" nerds have glasses.


Why is that?

[101A]

You are better than that.

Ahhhh. There's the rub.

(I'm not)

[Wild Cobra]

Who has ever stated that man is the 'cause' of CO2? Man's activities increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you prove that we don't add to the problem?

Add to the problem? No. I will not say that we did not add any extra heat by adding CO2. However, it would be unmeasurable.

Come to think of it, yes. We did not add to the problem... except for the soot from Asia.

Consider 8 GtC per year even if we expelled that much for for annually for the last 400 years, that amounts to 3200 GtC. Since the ratio at current CO2 concentrations are close to 50:1, that means that only about 2% would remain in the atmosphere. 2% of 3200 is 64 ppm. We have increased a little more than 100 ppm over this same 400 years. Problem now with trying to say we caused even half of the increased CO2 levels is that we were not expelling 8 CtC per year in the 1700's Maybe a few hundred, but that's a real high estimate I think. I don't know those numbers. However, if you believe a Climatologists like RuffnReadyOzStyle, he claims:

321Gt since 1750, and about 160Gt of that since 1970

Now 321 GtC is only about 10% if the current rate, and 2% of that amounts to less than 7 ppm that man has added to the atmosphere. The other 314.xx ppm would have sinked into the ocean if it wasn't warming. It is warning due to solar increases.

How can you dispute universally accepted sciences? Henry's Law is something that is accepted theory by all scientists because there is no evidence showing that it is wrong.

Oddly enough I was looking at a graph of "Atlantic Basin Storm Activity (1930-2008)" not more than five minutes ago.

The regression line for the last 78 years shows a rather steady upwards tick.

How does solar activity or soot explain that?

I would point out that overall warming trends, providing more thermal energy for storms that draw energy from seawater, would be a plausible explanation for this observed data.

Both soot and solar increases explain it very well, but there are more variables than just warming, solar, etc. There are natural oscillations, and factors I really haven't studied. I would almost as foolish to say it is caused by them as the alarmists are to say our warming is caused by CO2. Now first of all, it is accepted by nearly all scientists with the understanding of paleoclimatology that the sun has increased in intensity from about 1900 to about 1950. An approximate 0.1% which is more than a 0.2 C degree increase. Soot compound the problem by making the arctic ice melt faster, warming parts on the ocean even more.


From NASA GISS:


Here's one I did in Excel from the NASA GISS data:

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

Personally, I am beginning to suspect that you have over-simplified your thinking and calculations. Carbon and CO2 processes globally are a *wee* bit more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation, aren't they?

Henry's Law only explains the dynamics of equilibrium solubility between gasses and fluids. It is a very well established theory. It is a theory that you never hear the alarmist acknowledge, because it firmly blows their ideas out of the water. There are other factors, but once you understand that carbon cycle and Henry's Law, you cannot be a believer that CO2 is the reason we warm. It becomes absolutely apparent that heat drives CO2 levels, CO2 levels do not drive heat.

[Wild Cobra]

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

I should have addressed this better. There are several factors. Changes in solar power have nearly a linear relationship to changes in ocean warmth. Temperature is not the only variable. However, it has a real dramatic effect, and we know the temperature has increased over the centuries. Now salinity is rather stable on an annual basis, but has an effect on to. PH does as well, but has a unique equilibrium too. Salinity and carbon content actually change the PH, as does other chemical components in the ocean. I could look up PH again, but I'm not going to. PH very likely has the same percentile relationship as salinity. Now for about a 6% change in salinity, we have about a 1% change in CO2 absorption. Temperature is different however. In the coldest waters, about a 2% change in temperature has an approximate 25% change in CO2 absorption. In the tropical oceans, that same ~2% has an approximate 13% change in CO2 solubility. There are no changes in the ocean chemistry that come close to affecting CO2 solubility as much as temperature does.

Now before you tell me that the 10 C to 5 C is a 50% change, remember. In real scientific terms for calculations, the Kelvin scale is used. 0 C = 273.15 K. A comparison for the -1 C to 5 C is actually comparing 272.15 to 278.15 degrees. Over the long term, it is perfectly understandable to equate solar radiation changes to ocean temperature changes. The 0.1% increase since about 1900 can influence the ocean by a pretty decent amount. In the tropical waters, if we 1/20th of the 13% would be about 0.65% of the oceans CO2, or 247 GtC if all the water was that warm. Take that to the northern and southern oceans, 1/20th of the 25% change is about 1.25%. Now we have even a larger change of about 475 GtC, just for a 0.1% increase in temperature. The truth is somewhere between the extremes, I would guess about 1/20th of 17%, or 0.85%, 323 GtC. I could incorrectly claim that approximate amount is added to the atmosphere, but I would be disregarding equilibrium and that I claiming. It isn't that simple. Still, temperature is the primary influence to water absorption of gasses. Take maybe half the 323 GtC because of equilibrium, remembering about 2 GtC per ppm, and that would indicate a possible 161 ppm added for the 0.1% solar increase. Still a high number since we only have about 100 ppm more since the 1700. Gotta go, a friend called for a ride. Maybe I'll take the time and actually do the real math sometime. Equilibrium is more complicated than what I tried to show there. The 0.1% increase probably only has about a 40 ppm influence, but that's a guess.

I know I'm not good at explaining this. I never was a good teacher. Sorry.

[Obstructed_View]

The basic flaw in the global warming theory is that it's discussed in a political forum in much the same way as the 9/11 discussion.

[sook]

The basic flaw in the global warming theory is that it's discussed in a political forum in much the same way as the 9/11 discussion.

LMFAO!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

The basic flaw in the global warming theory is that it's discussed in a political forum in much the same way as the 9/11 discussion.

I guess that's what it can appear like. Some of us understand the sciences around it. Science firmly supports that we are having Climate Changes primarily driven by nature. Not by man. It's a political issue because power players are trying to use it for them to gain more power over us.

Try to get a grant to prove anthropogenic global warming. You'll probably get it.

Try to get a grant to prove its natural rather than man made. You probably won't get the grant.

[Obstructed_View]

I guess that's what it can appear like. Some of us understand the sciences around it. Science firmly supports that we are having Climate Changes primarily driven by nature. Not by man. It's a political issue because power players are trying to use it for them to gain more power over us.

Try to get a grant to prove anthropogenic global warming. You'll probably get it.

Try to get a grant to prove its natural rather than man made. You probably won't get the grant.

Precisely. It doesn't matter whether or not intelligent people understand it, because those that don't are the ones driving the debate. See DDT.

[sook]

wtf is global warming?

[RandomGuy]

Henry's Law only explains the dynamics of equilibrium solubility between gasses and fluids. It is a very well established theory. It is a theory that you never hear the alarmist acknowledge, because it firmly blows their ideas out of the water. There are other factors, but once you understand that carbon cycle and Henry's Law, you cannot be a believer that CO2 is the reason we warm. It becomes absolutely apparent that heat drives CO2 levels, CO2 levels do not drive heat.

I have no doubt the gasses are exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans.

What I have every doubt in is that you have a sufficient model to be able to say anything definitive. It seems you are trying to boil an extremely complex process down to a uselessly simple model.

[RandomGuy]

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

I should have addressed this better. Bla bla bla bla bla .05% bla

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

The answer to that question is not 4 paragraphs of rambling "well, it is this and this and this.."

The answer to that question is:

"Randomguy, if something is happening outside of my considerations that I have not accounted for, my models, theories and predictions will be wrong."

If you were honest that would have been your answer.

I assume you are halfway intelligent enough to be able to comprehend the simple critical thinking that the question implied.

Did I assume wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

I have no doubt the gasses are exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans.

What I have every doubt in is that you have a sufficient model to be able to say anything definitive. It seems you are trying to boil an extremely complex process down to a uselessly simple model.

No, I even said otherwise. It is a complicated system. However, if none of the other factors change, the ocean will absorb about 50 parts CO2 for every one part that remains in the atmosphere.

Simple scientific fact, as good as scientific facts get anyway.

My point is not all other variables are constant, and the natural changes drive the increase in CO2, which you are correct, I am not qualified to properly model. For that matter, nobody is.

[Wild Cobra]

Precisely. It doesn't matter whether or not intelligent people understand it, because those that don't are the ones driving the debate. See DDT.

Yep, I heard some interesting things on DDT. I'm not willing to take either side on it since I haven't researched it like I have Global Warming.

[RandomGuy]

... and there is the double-edged sword of the following "denier" schtick:

"HAHAHAHAHA, They're using computer models to tell us that the world is getting warmer because of CO2."

Once you "debunk" computer models as being valid or useful, you cannot rely on such models to make your case that CO2 is NOT causing warming trends.

Once again, since we cannot know for certain either way:

[Wild Cobra]

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

The answer to that question is not 4 paragraphs of rambling "well, it is this and this and this.."

Yes, I rambled on a bit, but did make the point that temperature has more effect on the equilibrium than any other factor. And a VERY LARGE effect at that, of which there is no debate. The science is well understood. It isn't well understood about CO2 levels significance on the greenhouse effect. There is no clear consensus on how much CO2 causes how much radiative forcing.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, since we cannot know for certain either way:

Bullshit. The problem is that the worse case scenario for the alarmists being correct is an absolute impossibility, under the pretense that we can stop or mitigate it. We are incapable of controlling nature to that degree.

"Q"... We need you...

[jack sommerset]

"The sky is falling,the sky is falling"