The CO2 transfer exchange coefficient? Is that what you are hanging your hat on?
Don't you understand how temperature changes things?
You are an idiot. The above just goes to further prove that.
Answer my questions why do you not consider those obviously important factors I mentioned or time for that matter? Why do you think your napkin math using made up numbers is more indicative than studies that consider all of the factors?
You have not uncovered some new revelation that scientists haven't considered.
Its hilarious that your stupidity on the one hand thinks that they have not considered solubility makes their studies flawed and then turn around and pimp your oversimplifications.
You are an idiot.
What's hilarious is that you think that study invalidates what I say.
You have not uncovered some new revelation that scientists haven't considered.
Its hilarious that your stupidity on the one hand thinks that they have not considered solubility makes their studies flawed and then turn around and pimp your oversimplifications.
You are an idiot.
Where did they say the values would remain the same if the average temperatures changed?
I took the coefficient to be due to limited wind speeds, the changes are not instantaneous, so the change is only 26% the full change change annually.
If I'm wrong about what they meant, it still doesn't invalidate what I say.
Since you seem to claim I'm wrong, then tell me. What does it mean too you?
Again...
Their study does not invalidate what I say. If you think it does, please explain how.
No one is saying that looking at the solubility of water is invalid, idiot. Looking only at that and acting like you have made a point is invalid.
Dimwit, HERE is a study talking about CO2 and ice. Specifically:
It took me all of two words in google and a click to find it.However,
pioneering measurements by Gosink and Kelley in the 1960–70s [Gosink et al., 1976; Kelley and Gosink, 1979] showed one year sea-ice was highly permeable to CO2 at temperatures above !15!C through numerous tiny channels. Mechanism involved in this process has been roughly
discussed. In this paper we present new data concerning the carbon flux across the sea ice and dynamics of the carbonate system in the Amerasian Arctic seas.
Its really simple this is not a lab where you have the seawater in a closed container and you let it sit there for a day or however long it takes the relative concentrations to reach equilibrium.
The transfer is not instantaneous. They described how to measure it over a year. Now if the ocean was in a sealed contained and nothing changed then you would have a point. Eventually it would reach that equilibrium.
You have no point because there are organisms in the water, the water circulates, there are chemical reactions going on and what not that change the concentration of the water other than just dissolution. At that same time there are factors changing the atmospheric CO2 like us burning a ton of fossil fuels, trees and animals respirating and photsynthesizing, various other chemical reactions, geothermal events etc.
After a year you calculate all of that and then you have relative levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2. You don't just keep the same ing values that you started with. Then you do the same thing again for the next year and you sample each year year by year.
How the do you think modeling works? Ever heard of sampling? This is why MiG and RG do not take you seriously. You are on the level of 6th graders but youre in your 50s.
Trying to describe the ocean with a solubility chart and thinking you have made a revelation is funny sure in the same way that watching Jerry Lewis make an ass of himself is funny but what point have you made? That is the ocean was in a test tube you could guess with fake numbers what would happen?
I am going to start treating you like Manny now and just laugh at you. The above is why. How can anyone take you seriously or bother to waste time trying to explain things to someone that is too stupid and unwilling to understand anything whatsoever but a solubility chart.
Is it your contention that the CO2 is going to permeate through the sea ice, into the water below?
I'm curious, what do you think this has to do with my argument, or is it another sidestep of the issue, because you cannot properly dispute what I say?
Read the study I linked its peer reviewed and thorough. Thats not what I said and its little surprise that your pea brain lack imagination came up with that.
Yeah, I sure sidestepped.
You seem to be trolling now but you are an idiot nonetheless. DIAF.
Wow...
You sure said a great deal of what I already knew.
Again, how does that keep the sea water solubility of CO2 from changing when the temperature changes?
How about summarizing something that is important. We were not talking about the permeability of ice. Summarize something that shows what I say is wrong, or stop wasting my time on unrelated tangents.Read the study I linked its peer reviewed and thorough. Thats not what I said and its little surprise that your pea brain lack imagination came up with that.
Yeah, I sure sidestepped.
You seem to be trolling now but you are an idiot nonetheless. DIAF.
Obviously.
And I answered your question in the first line of my last post, dolt.
I am not going to waste my time with someone as stupid as you, Dr. Scale Returns to 1.
I'll tell you what.
I emailed that to myself at work. Since it's only 4 pages, I'll read it when i have a chance tonight.
Time to go... I work swing shift.
In addition to the absorption or release of CO2 due to biological processes, changes
in the solubility of gaseous CO2 can alter CO2 concentrations in the oceans and the overlying atmosphere.
e solubility pump re ects the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 (i.e. solubility
is greater in colder water) and the thermal strati cation of the ocean27.http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/...cation-web.pdfe solubility and distribution of CO2 in the oceans depends on climatic conditions and a number of
physical (e.g. water column mixing, temperature), chemical (e.g. carbonate chemistry) and biological
(e.g. biological productivity) factors.
Yeah they sure don't consider it.
That took "models change in ocean temperature solubility" in google to find. It was the first link. They even consider the gradient of temperature.
Well Fuzzy...
Of your last three links, none of them disagree with what I have been saying, in fact all three say things I have been saying.
Strike 3.... You're Out!
That second one, that I read at work, is showing changes in the fraction of a milligram per meter square per second. That is still only
I was pointing out that there is no absorption under the ice between the atmosphere and water, but that is not my primary argument. It takes surface water for a good sink or source of CO2. The article talks about exchanges of CO2 when the ice pools up, or refreezes for the flux.
Really now... fractions of a milligram per square meter per second... That's still only 315 to 630 grams annually per square meter. Even their annual flux number for this surface pooling effect is around 0.04 GtC. wake up... we are talking total bio fluxes around 120 GtC, ocean fluxes around 90 GtC, and man's output around 8 GtC. I have left out bio fluxes in my arguments because they don't vary much with temperature. Ocean fluxes do, and those links you provided agree with me.
0.04 GtC... and you call me the fool?
Why don't you just ask me what you don't understand instead of going off the deep end with things that do not apply.
Strike 4,375,137. You are stupid. Lets make supposition and leave out the transfer coefficient, chemical processes, organic influence etc.
I will ask another did you or did you not say that climate scientists do not consider the changing temperature's effect on solubility?
WTF are you talking about?
All along, when I speak of the sinking and sourcing of the oceans, I know there are other differences. However, temperature is the primary variable that changes the solubility equilibrium between that atmosphere and water. that is why I focus on that. Salinity is the secondary variable for CO2 transfer between the atmosphere and oceans. Biological variables in the ocean are a distant third place.
All along, I have been speaking of how the ocean temperature changes the flux. You are going out of your way to stay off of that argument.
I'm not disagreeing with most the other factors. Why are you making it out like that? If there is some misunderstanding there, let's figure out what it is, and get on the same sheet of music.
How does a coefficient operate within a function?
Why are you asking me that?
That has nothing to do with my argument.
Is that what you want to win an argument on? rather than my argument that temperature difference change solubility?
A coefficient is essentially a variable assigned to a substance, like CO2, Oxygen, etc. Each one has a different value, which can then be plugged into an equation.
I didn't focus on that 0.26 coefficient. I'm not sure what purpose were talking about in the summary, and elaborated that I thought is was a percentage of the normal mixing because they interjected wind, indicating to me they were saying it takes time to see the effect.
Seriously. The solubility coefficient for CO2 doesn't need to change, especially when I am indicating that temperature is the primary variable to change the solubility, and salinity is the second.
Why does this matter to you?
Will you stop sidestepping the real substance of my argument, or is it that you are incapable of addressing it?
IOW you don't know. I asked how a coefficient operates in a function.
So you in no way consider the transfer coefficient in your napkin math. Is that accurate?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
