study documents relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

Oh my, now SSDD is entering into Geology. Just as stupidly as he does into every other subject he flapyaps on. You do realize that we trace geologic events on the rift areas worldwide with the seismic network? And that if there were a very large increase in the activity on the rifts, it would be making news in the whole of the geologic community. While there have been some local increases in activity, as well as some decreases in area previously active, there is not a worldwide increase in activity that occur were the rift zones increasing the outgassing neccessary for the increases in ocean temperature and acidity.
 
study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level - New study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

By comparing reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level over the past 40 million years, researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have found that greenhouse gas concentrations similar to the present (almost 400 parts per million) were systematically associated with sea levels at least nine metres above current levels.
The study determined the 'natural equilibrium' sea level for CO2 concentrations ranging between ice-age values of 180 parts per million and ice-free values of more than 1,000 parts per million.
It takes many centuries for such an equilibrium to be reached, therefore whilst the study does not predict any sea level value for the coming century, it does illustrate what sea level might be expected if climate were stabilized at a certain CO2 level for several centuries.
Lead author Dr Gavin Foster, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton which is based at the centre, said, "A specific case of interest is one in which CO2 levels are kept at 400 to 450 parts per million, because that is the requirement for the often mentioned target of a maximum of two degrees global warming."

Rest of article at title link.






Oh, looky here, yet another example of failure to realize that correlation doesn't equal causation. More AGW fail for the masses!
 
study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level -

Melting ice indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures plus melting ice equals rising sea level. Rising sea level indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperature indicates warmer oceans...wait for it...........wait for it.................wait for it......................


WARMER OCEANS CAN HOLD LESS ABSORBED CO2 THAN COLDER OCEANS THEREFORE WARMER OCEANS OUTGASSING CO2 RESULT IN HIGHER ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WHICH IS WHY CO2 LAGS INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE.


Simple physics supports the generality. Specifically, however, we are quite familiar with and capable of identifying the ocean's absorption and emission rates, and identifying the source of atmospheric CO2 according to the isotopic ratios of its composition. Currently the ocean is a net CO2 sink, absorbing much of all the CO2 humanity is emitting. The warming oceans are not yet adding more CO2 than they are absorbing.

References:
"Oceanic sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2"
http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/menemenlis/articles/co2_source-sink_pp.pdf

"The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2"
http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf


"Uptake and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: The Global C02 Survey" - http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/14_4/14_4_feely_et_al.pdf

(more references available upon request, discussion welcome)






I love it, they use a carbon accounting model for land use change and think it applys to the ocean. Where the hell do these clowns come from?
 
Trakkar s0n......this is about the 25th thread you've started since the new year, which last I checked is only about 1/2 a month old. Whats up with that?

Is there any point to the volume of threads here? Just a bit curious........especially considering that those who are responding to them are publically humiliating you at every turn.






It's called "trying to baffle them with bullshit". Or we call it propaganda.
 
Melting ice indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures plus melting ice equals rising sea level. Rising sea level indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperature indicates warmer oceans...wait for it...........wait for it.................wait for it......................


WARMER OCEANS CAN HOLD LESS ABSORBED CO2 THAN COLDER OCEANS THEREFORE WARMER OCEANS OUTGASSING CO2 RESULT IN HIGHER ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WHICH IS WHY CO2 LAGS INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE.

Simple physics supports the generality. Specifically, however, we are quite familiar with and capable of identifying the ocean's absorption and emission rates, and identifying the source of atmospheric CO2 according to the isotopic ratios of its composition. Currently the ocean is a net CO2 sink, absorbing much of all the CO2 humanity is emitting. The warming oceans are not yet adding more CO2 than they are absorbing.

References:
"Oceanic sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2"
http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/menemenlis/articles/co2_source-sink_pp.pdf

"The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2"
http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf


"Uptake and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: The Global C02 Survey" - http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/14_4/14_4_feely_et_al.pdf

(more references available upon request, discussion welcome)


I love it, they use a carbon accounting model for land use change and think it applys to the ocean. Where the hell do these clowns come from?

((Psst, your lack of reading comprehension is showing!))
 
I have provided scientifically substantive and compelling references in support of my positions and statements for the benefit of anyone else who may read these posts and chose to further research these issues for themselves; your estrangement from, and rejection of, reality is of little concern to me.

No you haven't. You have provided pretty convincing proof of an error cascade within climate science.

Since the whole hoax rests on trenberth's energy budget in one way or another...prove it is spot on. Actual measured proof.
 
I have provided scientifically substantive and compelling references in support of my positions and statements for the benefit of anyone else who may read these posts and chose to further research these issues for themselves; your estrangement from, and rejection of, reality is of little concern to me.

No you haven't. You have provided pretty convincing proof of an error cascade within climate science.

actually denial depends upon ignoring and rejecting an entire spectrum of physics, chemistry and geology upon which a variety of climate science issues are based. But we can talk about this one if you like.

Since the whole hoax rests on trenberth's energy budget in one way or another...prove it is spot on. Actual measured proof.

"An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950"
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

The Basics
http://paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap2.pdf

the Class
EESC V2100 - The Earth's Radiation Budget, Part I.

More references
Atmospheres and Planetary Temperatures

NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)
 

Forum List

Back
Top