What does "equilibrium temperature of CO2 = -80F" mean?

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.
And the warming of 40 degrees F from the theoretical temperature if there was no greenhouse gases, should not be confused with current warming, even though that was past global warming to get to the temperature the atmosphere was for hundreds of millions of years.
But even that is a generalization, but cause we also know the historic value is really the average of a 120,000 year long fluctuating cycle. But that is not really important, since we now are talking about a very fast, new, and different change being cause by man's release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and solar energy, through the burning of fossil fuel. We don't even have to talk about the change in upper atmosphere radiation capability, when you simply consider all that sequestered, fossil, ancient solar energy being release so quickly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.
And the warming of 40 degrees F from the theoretical temperature if there was no greenhouse gases, should not be confused with current warming, even though that was past global warming to get to the temperature the atmosphere was for hundreds of millions of years.
But even that is a generalization, but cause we also know the historic value is really the average of a 120,000 year long fluctuating cycle. But that is not really important, since we now are talking about a very fast, new, and different change being cause by man's release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and solar energy, through the burning of fossil fuel. We don't even have to talk about the change in upper atmosphere radiation capability, when you simply consider all that sequestered, fossil, ancient solar energy being release so quickly.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.

Stasis point?
Was that the temperature before the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature during the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature after the Little Ice Age?

Maybe provide a year for the "stasis point"?
And a definition for stasis point? Maybe a link?

 

[IanC]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The greenhouse effect is identical to the force behind global warming.
The greenhouse effect is what retains heat in some sort of differential more than is allowed to escape.
It is what shifts the equilibrium out of a simple balance of in equals out.
Global warming is when you add more of whatever implements that imbalance, causing it to increase.
While there are more ways to do that other than carbon, carbon historically appears to be the MAIN one that initiates and ends the cyclic ice ages that are about 120,000 years long.
So by messing with carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, adding over 5 trillion tons a years with a form that accumulates because it does not decay, you ensure global warming.
Yes, water then is evaporated by the rising temperatures from the carbon, and that acts as an accelerator.
But it is always carbon that initiates the rise, historically.
So then yes, it is mostly the carbon we need to consider.
It is not just CO2, as methane, and lots of other carbon gases have even far greater effect than CO2.
CO2 is actually about the weakest of all greenhouse gases.
It just is the most common.

Increases in CO2 follow warming. At best it reinforces a warming trend because oceans outgas CO2 as they warm.

The trendy, media inspired use of 'carbon' for CO2 is incorrect.

Global warming is assumed to be primarily manmade. Calling all of the greenhouse effect as global warming is incorrect.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.
And the warming of 40 degrees F from the theoretical temperature if there was no greenhouse gases, should not be confused with current warming, even though that was past global warming to get to the temperature the atmosphere was for hundreds of millions of years.
But even that is a generalization, but cause we also know the historic value is really the average of a 120,000 year long fluctuating cycle. But that is not really important, since we now are talking about a very fast, new, and different change being cause by man's release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and solar energy, through the burning of fossil fuel. We don't even have to talk about the change in upper atmosphere radiation capability, when you simply consider all that sequestered, fossil, ancient solar energy being release so quickly.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.

Stasis point?
Was that the temperature before the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature during the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature after the Little Ice Age?

Maybe provide a year for the "stasis point"?
And a definition for stasis point? Maybe a link?

We have had at least 12 ice ages that we know of, so we know the range of temperature swings.
That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.
But now we have changed that.
According to the ice age cycles that are about 120,000 years long, right now the planet is supposed to be over its warming, and slightly into its cooling phase.
So now, "global warming" refers to the deviation from the normal 120,000 year long ice age cycle, above what it would be in the normal cycles.
It does not refer to the warming within the 120,000 year long cycle range.

And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If you think plants can't do that and have that much effect, all you have to do is remember that even further back, the Earth has a toxic ammonia and methane atmosphere, and they theorize that it was micro organisms that converted the atmosphere to the current oxygen rich one we have now.

{...
After the hydrogen and helium had escaped, Earth's Hadean atmosphere was left with methane, ammonia, water vapor, and small percentages of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. A cataclysmic meteorite bombardment around 3.9 Ga kept much of the Earth's surface in the molten state, and the incoming impactors may have brought additional water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other gases that supplemented the atmosphere.
...
Microfossils of sulfur-metabolizing cells have been found in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks[6], and it is known that the first aquatic photosynthetic organisms originated around 3.5 Ga. The oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) during the Archean Eon reacted with the metal ions in the anoxic sea. Billions of years would pass before the photosynthetic microorganisms could eventually change the composition of the atmosphere. By the middle of the Archean Eon, the Earth had cooled enough so that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere had condensed as water, and the Earth had its first days without clouds. Ammonia and methane were only minor constituents of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comprised about 15% of the atmosphere and the percentage of nitrogen was 75%.[5] In essence, most of the original components of the atmosphere had escaped, precipitated as liquids or reacted chemically to form solid compounds. The volcanic activity and the photosynthetic bacteria were now the major factors influencing the Earth's atmospheric composition.

Earth's third atmosphere (Proterozoic Eon, 2.5 to 0.54 Ga)
Monocellular life proliferated during the Proterozoic Eon. Anaerobic microbial life thrived in a planet with little oxygen. Anaerobic organisms obtained their energy in various ways. Methanogens combined hydrogen and carbon dioxide to produce methane and water:

CO2 + 4 H2

CH4 + 2 H2O
Sulfate reducing bacteria combined methane and sulfate radicals:

CH4 + SO4--

HCO3- + HS- + H2O
Other organisms capable of photosynthesis used the energy of sunlight to convert the abundant carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates (C6H12O6) and oxygen, which was deadly to the anaerobes.

6 CO2 + 6 H2O

C6H12O6 + 6 O2
Production of oxygen through photosynthesis
...}
Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The greenhouse effect is identical to the force behind global warming.
The greenhouse effect is what retains heat in some sort of differential more than is allowed to escape.
It is what shifts the equilibrium out of a simple balance of in equals out.
Global warming is when you add more of whatever implements that imbalance, causing it to increase.
While there are more ways to do that other than carbon, carbon historically appears to be the MAIN one that initiates and ends the cyclic ice ages that are about 120,000 years long.
So by messing with carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, adding over 5 trillion tons a years with a form that accumulates because it does not decay, you ensure global warming.
Yes, water then is evaporated by the rising temperatures from the carbon, and that acts as an accelerator.
But it is always carbon that initiates the rise, historically.
So then yes, it is mostly the carbon we need to consider.
It is not just CO2, as methane, and lots of other carbon gases have even far greater effect than CO2.
CO2 is actually about the weakest of all greenhouse gases.
It just is the most common.

Increases in CO2 follow warming. At best it reinforces a warming trend because oceans outgas CO2 as they warm.

The trendy, media inspired use of 'carbon' for CO2 is incorrect.

Global warming is assumed to be primarily manmade. Calling all of the greenhouse effect as global warming is incorrect.

Not correct. The claim CO2 follow warming is based on a very minute difference in how ice cores are interpreted, and is not at all verified.
It is much more likely CO2 precedes warming.
That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

{...
Ocean acidification
Another effect of global warming on the carbon cycle is ocean acidification. The ocean and the atmosphere constantly act to maintain a state of equilibrium, so a rise in atmospheric carbon naturally leads to a rise in oceanic carbon. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in water it forms hydrogen and bicarbonate ions, which in turn breaks down to hydrogen and carbonate ions.[29] All these extra hydrogen ions increase the acidity of the ocean and make survival harder for planktonic organisms that depend on calcium carbonate to form their shells. A decrease in the base of the food chain will, once again, be destructive to the ecosystems to which they belong. With fewer of these photosynthetic organisms present at the surface of the ocean, less carbon dioxide will be converted to oxygen, thereby allowing the greenhouse gasses to go unchecked.

Steps are being taken to combat the potentially devastating effects of ocean acidification, and scientists worldwide are coming together to solve the problem that is known as “global warming’s evil twin”.

Between 1750 and 2000, surface-ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1, from about 8.2 to about 8.1.[30] Surface-ocean pH has probably not been below 8.1 during the past 2 million years.[30]Projections suggest that surface-ocean pH could decrease by an additional 0.3–0.4 units by 2100.[31] Ocean acidification could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society.
...}
Effects of global warming on oceans - Wikipedia

Clearly the oceans are currently both warming and becoming more acidic, so are absorbing more CO2, not releasing it.

 

[IanC]

And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

Deep sigh.

Another one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.
And the warming of 40 degrees F from the theoretical temperature if there was no greenhouse gases, should not be confused with current warming, even though that was past global warming to get to the temperature the atmosphere was for hundreds of millions of years.
But even that is a generalization, but cause we also know the historic value is really the average of a 120,000 year long fluctuating cycle. But that is not really important, since we now are talking about a very fast, new, and different change being cause by man's release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and solar energy, through the burning of fossil fuel. We don't even have to talk about the change in upper atmosphere radiation capability, when you simply consider all that sequestered, fossil, ancient solar energy being release so quickly.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.

Stasis point?
Was that the temperature before the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature during the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature after the Little Ice Age?

Maybe provide a year for the "stasis point"?
And a definition for stasis point? Maybe a link?

We have had at least 12 ice ages that we know of, so we know the range of temperature swings.
That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.
But now we have changed that.
According to the ice age cycles that are about 120,000 years long, right now the planet is supposed to be over its warming, and slightly into its cooling phase.
So now, "global warming" refers to the deviation from the normal 120,000 year long ice age cycle, above what it would be in the normal cycles.
It does not refer to the warming within the 120,000 year long cycle range.

And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If you think plants can't do that and have that much effect, all you have to do is remember that even further back, the Earth has a toxic ammonia and methane atmosphere, and they theorize that it was micro organisms that converted the atmosphere to the current oxygen rich one we have now.

{...
After the hydrogen and helium had escaped, Earth's Hadean atmosphere was left with methane, ammonia, water vapor, and small percentages of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. A cataclysmic meteorite bombardment around 3.9 Ga kept much of the Earth's surface in the molten state, and the incoming impactors may have brought additional water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other gases that supplemented the atmosphere.
...
Microfossils of sulfur-metabolizing cells have been found in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks[6], and it is known that the first aquatic photosynthetic organisms originated around 3.5 Ga. The oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) during the Archean Eon reacted with the metal ions in the anoxic sea. Billions of years would pass before the photosynthetic microorganisms could eventually change the composition of the atmosphere. By the middle of the Archean Eon, the Earth had cooled enough so that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere had condensed as water, and the Earth had its first days without clouds. Ammonia and methane were only minor constituents of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comprised about 15% of the atmosphere and the percentage of nitrogen was 75%.[5] In essence, most of the original components of the atmosphere had escaped, precipitated as liquids or reacted chemically to form solid compounds. The volcanic activity and the photosynthetic bacteria were now the major factors influencing the Earth's atmospheric composition.

Earth's third atmosphere (Proterozoic Eon, 2.5 to 0.54 Ga)
Monocellular life proliferated during the Proterozoic Eon. Anaerobic microbial life thrived in a planet with little oxygen. Anaerobic organisms obtained their energy in various ways. Methanogens combined hydrogen and carbon dioxide to produce methane and water:

CO2 + 4 H2

CH4 + 2 H2O
Sulfate reducing bacteria combined methane and sulfate radicals:

CH4 + SO4--

HCO3- + HS- + H2O
Other organisms capable of photosynthesis used the energy of sunlight to convert the abundant carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates (C6H12O6) and oxygen, which was deadly to the anaerobes.

6 CO2 + 6 H2O

C6H12O6 + 6 O2
Production of oxygen through photosynthesis
...}
Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere

That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.

Geez.

stasis: a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.



And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If we interfere with a mass plant die off, that's a bad thing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The greenhouse effect is identical to the force behind global warming.
The greenhouse effect is what retains heat in some sort of differential more than is allowed to escape.
It is what shifts the equilibrium out of a simple balance of in equals out.
Global warming is when you add more of whatever implements that imbalance, causing it to increase.
While there are more ways to do that other than carbon, carbon historically appears to be the MAIN one that initiates and ends the cyclic ice ages that are about 120,000 years long.
So by messing with carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, adding over 5 trillion tons a years with a form that accumulates because it does not decay, you ensure global warming.
Yes, water then is evaporated by the rising temperatures from the carbon, and that acts as an accelerator.
But it is always carbon that initiates the rise, historically.
So then yes, it is mostly the carbon we need to consider.
It is not just CO2, as methane, and lots of other carbon gases have even far greater effect than CO2.
CO2 is actually about the weakest of all greenhouse gases.
It just is the most common.

Increases in CO2 follow warming. At best it reinforces a warming trend because oceans outgas CO2 as they warm.

The trendy, media inspired use of 'carbon' for CO2 is incorrect.

Global warming is assumed to be primarily manmade. Calling all of the greenhouse effect as global warming is incorrect.

Not correct. The claim CO2 follow warming is based on a very minute difference in how ice cores are interpreted, and is not at all verified.
It is much more likely CO2 precedes warming.
That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

{...
Ocean acidification
Another effect of global warming on the carbon cycle is ocean acidification. The ocean and the atmosphere constantly act to maintain a state of equilibrium, so a rise in atmospheric carbon naturally leads to a rise in oceanic carbon. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in water it forms hydrogen and bicarbonate ions, which in turn breaks down to hydrogen and carbonate ions.[29] All these extra hydrogen ions increase the acidity of the ocean and make survival harder for planktonic organisms that depend on calcium carbonate to form their shells. A decrease in the base of the food chain will, once again, be destructive to the ecosystems to which they belong. With fewer of these photosynthetic organisms present at the surface of the ocean, less carbon dioxide will be converted to oxygen, thereby allowing the greenhouse gasses to go unchecked.

Steps are being taken to combat the potentially devastating effects of ocean acidification, and scientists worldwide are coming together to solve the problem that is known as “global warming’s evil twin”.

Between 1750 and 2000, surface-ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1, from about 8.2 to about 8.1.[30] Surface-ocean pH has probably not been below 8.1 during the past 2 million years.[30]Projections suggest that surface-ocean pH could decrease by an additional 0.3–0.4 units by 2100.[31] Ocean acidification could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society.
...}
Effects of global warming on oceans - Wikipedia

Clearly the oceans are currently both warming and becoming more acidic, so are absorbing more CO2, not releasing it.

That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

Of course they do. You can prove that by leaving a can of Coke in your car on a 30 degree day for a few hours versus leaving it in your car on a 90 degree day for a few hours.

Maybe you can tell us what happens in each case when you crack your drink open?

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

That makes no sense.
The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas warming, so you don't subtract.
The subtraction was already done.
Kelvin is the same size units as centigrade, so there is no conversion necessary.

{... The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C ...}

 

[IanC]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

We have another self righteous bonehead who cannot accept being corrected.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.
And the warming of 40 degrees F from the theoretical temperature if there was no greenhouse gases, should not be confused with current warming, even though that was past global warming to get to the temperature the atmosphere was for hundreds of millions of years.
But even that is a generalization, but cause we also know the historic value is really the average of a 120,000 year long fluctuating cycle. But that is not really important, since we now are talking about a very fast, new, and different change being cause by man's release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and solar energy, through the burning of fossil fuel. We don't even have to talk about the change in upper atmosphere radiation capability, when you simply consider all that sequestered, fossil, ancient solar energy being release so quickly.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.

Stasis point?
Was that the temperature before the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature during the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature after the Little Ice Age?

Maybe provide a year for the "stasis point"?
And a definition for stasis point? Maybe a link?

We have had at least 12 ice ages that we know of, so we know the range of temperature swings.
That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.
But now we have changed that.
According to the ice age cycles that are about 120,000 years long, right now the planet is supposed to be over its warming, and slightly into its cooling phase.
So now, "global warming" refers to the deviation from the normal 120,000 year long ice age cycle, above what it would be in the normal cycles.
It does not refer to the warming within the 120,000 year long cycle range.

And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If you think plants can't do that and have that much effect, all you have to do is remember that even further back, the Earth has a toxic ammonia and methane atmosphere, and they theorize that it was micro organisms that converted the atmosphere to the current oxygen rich one we have now.

{...
After the hydrogen and helium had escaped, Earth's Hadean atmosphere was left with methane, ammonia, water vapor, and small percentages of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. A cataclysmic meteorite bombardment around 3.9 Ga kept much of the Earth's surface in the molten state, and the incoming impactors may have brought additional water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other gases that supplemented the atmosphere.
...
Microfossils of sulfur-metabolizing cells have been found in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks[6], and it is known that the first aquatic photosynthetic organisms originated around 3.5 Ga. The oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) during the Archean Eon reacted with the metal ions in the anoxic sea. Billions of years would pass before the photosynthetic microorganisms could eventually change the composition of the atmosphere. By the middle of the Archean Eon, the Earth had cooled enough so that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere had condensed as water, and the Earth had its first days without clouds. Ammonia and methane were only minor constituents of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comprised about 15% of the atmosphere and the percentage of nitrogen was 75%.[5] In essence, most of the original components of the atmosphere had escaped, precipitated as liquids or reacted chemically to form solid compounds. The volcanic activity and the photosynthetic bacteria were now the major factors influencing the Earth's atmospheric composition.

Earth's third atmosphere (Proterozoic Eon, 2.5 to 0.54 Ga)
Monocellular life proliferated during the Proterozoic Eon. Anaerobic microbial life thrived in a planet with little oxygen. Anaerobic organisms obtained their energy in various ways. Methanogens combined hydrogen and carbon dioxide to produce methane and water:

CO2 + 4 H2

CH4 + 2 H2O
Sulfate reducing bacteria combined methane and sulfate radicals:

CH4 + SO4--

HCO3- + HS- + H2O
Other organisms capable of photosynthesis used the energy of sunlight to convert the abundant carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates (C6H12O6) and oxygen, which was deadly to the anaerobes.

6 CO2 + 6 H2O

C6H12O6 + 6 O2
Production of oxygen through photosynthesis
...}
Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere

That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.

Geez.

stasis: a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.



And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If we interfere with a mass plant die off, that's a bad thing?

I keep using the word "stasis" correctly.
Way back 200 million years ago, things were very chaotic and not at all cyclic, regular, or with any equilibrium.
Ice ages then were very long, like millions of years, and irregular.
Then about 3 million years ago, things changed and ice ages because very regular, cyclic, and an equilibrium was established.
I know of at least 12 regular ice ages that then happened like clockwork, all lasting about 120,000 years, but having no permanent effects.
The climate had entered into a pattern of dynamic equilibrium.

While interfering with a plant die off may not be a very bad thing, we are far from the cold point of the cycle that would freeze plants.
In fact, we are just after the warmest part of the cycle.
So then to initiate artificial additional warming, while still under the influence of the warmest part of the cycle, would essentially be doubling up and loading a new artificial warming right on top of the natural old warming.
And a double warming could be a disaster.
Worst case scenario could be a runaway race condition that gets so hot that all surface water evaporates, like it does on Venus.
The surface of the earth could become the temperature of molten lead.

The two feedback mechanisms that could cause this rapid heat acceleration are water vapor, which simply evaporates from the ocean more easily as CO2 warms the oceans, and methane released from frozen deposits on the bottoms of oceans, tundra, etc.
Methane is the most scary because is it about 20 times better at retaining planetary heat.
And there are huge deposits frozen on the ocean floor. There have been ships sunk in the Carribean Sea from being above a bubble of methane gas release from a melting of frozen methane hydrate. And Siberia, Antarctica, etc., have vast frozen swamps full of frozen methane hydrate.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The greenhouse effect is identical to the force behind global warming.
The greenhouse effect is what retains heat in some sort of differential more than is allowed to escape.
It is what shifts the equilibrium out of a simple balance of in equals out.
Global warming is when you add more of whatever implements that imbalance, causing it to increase.
While there are more ways to do that other than carbon, carbon historically appears to be the MAIN one that initiates and ends the cyclic ice ages that are about 120,000 years long.
So by messing with carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, adding over 5 trillion tons a years with a form that accumulates because it does not decay, you ensure global warming.
Yes, water then is evaporated by the rising temperatures from the carbon, and that acts as an accelerator.
But it is always carbon that initiates the rise, historically.
So then yes, it is mostly the carbon we need to consider.
It is not just CO2, as methane, and lots of other carbon gases have even far greater effect than CO2.
CO2 is actually about the weakest of all greenhouse gases.
It just is the most common.

Increases in CO2 follow warming. At best it reinforces a warming trend because oceans outgas CO2 as they warm.

The trendy, media inspired use of 'carbon' for CO2 is incorrect.

Global warming is assumed to be primarily manmade. Calling all of the greenhouse effect as global warming is incorrect.

Not correct. The claim CO2 follow warming is based on a very minute difference in how ice cores are interpreted, and is not at all verified.
It is much more likely CO2 precedes warming.
That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

{...
Ocean acidification
Another effect of global warming on the carbon cycle is ocean acidification. The ocean and the atmosphere constantly act to maintain a state of equilibrium, so a rise in atmospheric carbon naturally leads to a rise in oceanic carbon. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in water it forms hydrogen and bicarbonate ions, which in turn breaks down to hydrogen and carbonate ions.[29] All these extra hydrogen ions increase the acidity of the ocean and make survival harder for planktonic organisms that depend on calcium carbonate to form their shells. A decrease in the base of the food chain will, once again, be destructive to the ecosystems to which they belong. With fewer of these photosynthetic organisms present at the surface of the ocean, less carbon dioxide will be converted to oxygen, thereby allowing the greenhouse gasses to go unchecked.

Steps are being taken to combat the potentially devastating effects of ocean acidification, and scientists worldwide are coming together to solve the problem that is known as “global warming’s evil twin”.

Between 1750 and 2000, surface-ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1, from about 8.2 to about 8.1.[30] Surface-ocean pH has probably not been below 8.1 during the past 2 million years.[30]Projections suggest that surface-ocean pH could decrease by an additional 0.3–0.4 units by 2100.[31] Ocean acidification could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society.
...}
Effects of global warming on oceans - Wikipedia

Clearly the oceans are currently both warming and becoming more acidic, so are absorbing more CO2, not releasing it.

That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

Of course they do. You can prove that by leaving a can of Coke in your car on a 30 degree day for a few hours versus leaving it in your car on a 90 degree day for a few hours.

Maybe you can tell us what happens in each case when you crack your drink open?

That has nothing at all to do with how much gas that the liquid can dissolve.
Both cans of coke have more CO2 in the form of carbonic acid, than they can dissolve.
What keeps the carbonic acid from escaping either can is the high pressure created by the can.
So then the temperature determines the energy this excess CO2 has, and the speed at which it will froth forth.
That tells us nothing about how much CO2 is retained in the can.

Clearly oceans currently are still absorbing very large amounts of CO2, and will absorb a lot more yet.
But the capacity is slowing down if nothing else.

{...
Dickson noted that although the oceans presently take up about one-fourth of the excess CO2 human activities put into the air, that fraction was significantly larger at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That’s for a number of reasons, starting with the simple one that as one dissolves CO2 into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2.

More than 50 years ago, the late Scripps Director Roger Revelle defined a term now known as the Revelle Factor to describe this aspect of the relationship between the changing composition of seawater and the overlying atmosphere.

Dickson noted there are other factors at play. Human fossil fuel use is also behind a general warming trend in the oceans observed over the past 50 years that increases the resistance to CO2 uptake. Furthermore, in the absence of such warming, ocean mixing would normally be expected to be constantly refreshing the water at the ocean’s surface, the place where it meets with air and dissolves CO2. Instead global warming leaves surface water in place to an increasing degree thus slowing down the transfer of CO2from the ocean surface deeper into the ocean. It’s as if the pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere into the surface water and then on deeper into the ocean had slowed down.

This slowing of ocean mixing may have another effect. It stifles the transport of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate from deeper waters to the surface, which diminishes the growth of phytoplankton, which store carbon in their tissue as a product of photosynthesis. The sinking tissue takes the carbon with it to the deep ocean when the organisms die. It’s another way that carbon can be removed from the ocean surface.

All this adds up to what scientists expect to be a gradual slowing of ocean CO2 uptake if human fossil fuel use continues to accelerate. As a smaller fraction of the excess CO2 goes into the oceans, a larger fraction may remain in the atmosphere, and the chemical changes in seawater that can affect organisms will continue to grow in lockstep with the relentless increases in the excess CO2 in the overlying atmosphere caused by human activities.

A major factor governing the rate of uptake of CO2 by the oceans is pace at which global CO2 emissions are increasing over time. Over the past decades, fossil emissions (measured as tons of carbon) have grown at 2 to 4 percent annually, from around 2 billion tons in 1950 to 9 billion tons today. The oceans as a whole have a large capacity for absorbing CO2, but ocean mixing is too slow to have spread this additional CO2 deep into the ocean.

As a result, ocean waters deeper than 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) have a large but still unrealized absorption capacity, said Scripps geochemist Ralph Keeling. The rapid emissions growth is unlikely to continue much longer as the reserves of conventional oil, coal, and gas become depleted and steps are taken to reduce emissions and limit climate impacts. As emissions slow in the future, the oceans will continue to absorb excess CO2 emitted in the past that is still in the air, and this excess will spread into ever-deeper layers of the ocean. The ocean uptake, when expressed as a percent of emissions, will therefore inevitably increase and eventually, 50 to 80 percent of CO2 cumulative emissions will likely reside in the oceans, Keeling said.

– Robert Monroe
...}

How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

We have another self righteous bonehead who cannot accept being corrected.

Wrong again.
Do you want more sources?
There literally are thousands of them.

{...
Venus' actual temperature is over three times more than if there was no greenhouse effect at work.
Earth has a natural greenhouse effect mostly caused by water vapor to raise the temperature by about 34 deg C so the oceans do not freeze.
...}
Planetary Science

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

That makes no sense.
The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas warming, so you don't subtract.
The subtraction was already done.
Kelvin is the same size units as centigrade, so there is no conversion necessary.

{... The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C ...}

The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas

Yes. So the temperature would be -18C.
Don't worry about it, it's math, I never expected a liberal like you to understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.
And the warming of 40 degrees F from the theoretical temperature if there was no greenhouse gases, should not be confused with current warming, even though that was past global warming to get to the temperature the atmosphere was for hundreds of millions of years.
But even that is a generalization, but cause we also know the historic value is really the average of a 120,000 year long fluctuating cycle. But that is not really important, since we now are talking about a very fast, new, and different change being cause by man's release of hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon and solar energy, through the burning of fossil fuel. We don't even have to talk about the change in upper atmosphere radiation capability, when you simply consider all that sequestered, fossil, ancient solar energy being release so quickly.

You have a point in that modern global warming is referring to the increase from the stasis point the planet has had for hundreds of millions of years.

Stasis point?
Was that the temperature before the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature during the Little Ice Age?
Was that the temperature after the Little Ice Age?

Maybe provide a year for the "stasis point"?
And a definition for stasis point? Maybe a link?

We have had at least 12 ice ages that we know of, so we know the range of temperature swings.
That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.
But now we have changed that.
According to the ice age cycles that are about 120,000 years long, right now the planet is supposed to be over its warming, and slightly into its cooling phase.
So now, "global warming" refers to the deviation from the normal 120,000 year long ice age cycle, above what it would be in the normal cycles.
It does not refer to the warming within the 120,000 year long cycle range.

And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If you think plants can't do that and have that much effect, all you have to do is remember that even further back, the Earth has a toxic ammonia and methane atmosphere, and they theorize that it was micro organisms that converted the atmosphere to the current oxygen rich one we have now.

{...
After the hydrogen and helium had escaped, Earth's Hadean atmosphere was left with methane, ammonia, water vapor, and small percentages of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. A cataclysmic meteorite bombardment around 3.9 Ga kept much of the Earth's surface in the molten state, and the incoming impactors may have brought additional water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other gases that supplemented the atmosphere.
...
Microfossils of sulfur-metabolizing cells have been found in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks[6], and it is known that the first aquatic photosynthetic organisms originated around 3.5 Ga. The oxygen produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) during the Archean Eon reacted with the metal ions in the anoxic sea. Billions of years would pass before the photosynthetic microorganisms could eventually change the composition of the atmosphere. By the middle of the Archean Eon, the Earth had cooled enough so that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere had condensed as water, and the Earth had its first days without clouds. Ammonia and methane were only minor constituents of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comprised about 15% of the atmosphere and the percentage of nitrogen was 75%.[5] In essence, most of the original components of the atmosphere had escaped, precipitated as liquids or reacted chemically to form solid compounds. The volcanic activity and the photosynthetic bacteria were now the major factors influencing the Earth's atmospheric composition.

Earth's third atmosphere (Proterozoic Eon, 2.5 to 0.54 Ga)
Monocellular life proliferated during the Proterozoic Eon. Anaerobic microbial life thrived in a planet with little oxygen. Anaerobic organisms obtained their energy in various ways. Methanogens combined hydrogen and carbon dioxide to produce methane and water:

CO2 + 4 H2

CH4 + 2 H2O
Sulfate reducing bacteria combined methane and sulfate radicals:

CH4 + SO4--

HCO3- + HS- + H2O
Other organisms capable of photosynthesis used the energy of sunlight to convert the abundant carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates (C6H12O6) and oxygen, which was deadly to the anaerobes.

6 CO2 + 6 H2O

C6H12O6 + 6 O2
Production of oxygen through photosynthesis
...}
Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere

That range, or the average of it, is a consistent state of stasis.

Geez.

stasis: a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.



And by the way, the most accepted theory for the 120,000 year long ice age cycle, is plants using up most of the CO2, that causing cooling, that kills the plants, they decompose, releasing the CO2 again, which then causes warming, that again induces high plant growth.

If we interfere with a mass plant die off, that's a bad thing?

I keep using the word "stasis" correctly.
Way back 200 million years ago, things were very chaotic and not at all cyclic, regular, or with any equilibrium.
Ice ages then were very long, like millions of years, and irregular.
Then about 3 million years ago, things changed and ice ages because very regular, cyclic, and an equilibrium was established.
I know of at least 12 regular ice ages that then happened like clockwork, all lasting about 120,000 years, but having no permanent effects.
The climate had entered into a pattern of dynamic equilibrium.

While interfering with a plant die off may not be a very bad thing, we are far from the cold point of the cycle that would freeze plants.
In fact, we are just after the warmest part of the cycle.
So then to initiate artificial additional warming, while still under the influence of the warmest part of the cycle, would essentially be doubling up and loading a new artificial warming right on top of the natural old warming.
And a double warming could be a disaster.
Worst case scenario could be a runaway race condition that gets so hot that all surface water evaporates, like it does on Venus.
The surface of the earth could become the temperature of molten lead.

The two feedback mechanisms that could cause this rapid heat acceleration are water vapor, which simply evaporates from the ocean more easily as CO2 warms the oceans, and methane released from frozen deposits on the bottoms of oceans, tundra, etc.
Methane is the most scary because is it about 20 times better at retaining planetary heat.
And there are huge deposits frozen on the ocean floor. There have been ships sunk in the Carribean Sea from being above a bubble of methane gas release from a melting of frozen methane hydrate. And Siberia, Antarctica, etc., have vast frozen swamps full of frozen methane hydrate.

I keep using the word "stasis" correctly.

Stasis means the temperature barely changes. Ice ages and then warm periods isn't stasis. Moron.

The surface of the earth could become the temperature of molten lead.

Sorry, you'll have to show me the math behind your claim.

 

[Rigby5]

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

That makes no sense.
The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas warming, so you don't subtract.
The subtraction was already done.
Kelvin is the same size units as centigrade, so there is no conversion necessary.

{... The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C ...}

The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas

Yes. So the temperature would be -18C.
Don't worry about it, it's math, I never expected a liberal like you to understand.

Well yes, if you wanted to say that now the temp is an average of +14.5C.
But I would not normally do that, since at what latitude, what month of year, what time of day, etc.?
It makes more sense to talk about the delta.
And we know greenhouse gases work to make it on average, 33K warmer.
So then why would it be unexpected for more greenhouse gases to not increase the temperature even more?
And the thing about CO2, is that it does not naturally decay once you release another 9 billion tons a year into the atmosphere.
It is going to build up, if oceans and plants can't take up the extra.
And then the CO2 warmth should cause ocean warming to evaporate more H2O, causing the temperature rise from greenhouse gas increase to accelerate.
But there is the factor of more water vapor also causing more reflective clouds.
However, even that is not great because it would make air travel more dangerous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The greenhouse effect is identical to the force behind global warming.
The greenhouse effect is what retains heat in some sort of differential more than is allowed to escape.
It is what shifts the equilibrium out of a simple balance of in equals out.
Global warming is when you add more of whatever implements that imbalance, causing it to increase.
While there are more ways to do that other than carbon, carbon historically appears to be the MAIN one that initiates and ends the cyclic ice ages that are about 120,000 years long.
So by messing with carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, adding over 5 trillion tons a years with a form that accumulates because it does not decay, you ensure global warming.
Yes, water then is evaporated by the rising temperatures from the carbon, and that acts as an accelerator.
But it is always carbon that initiates the rise, historically.
So then yes, it is mostly the carbon we need to consider.
It is not just CO2, as methane, and lots of other carbon gases have even far greater effect than CO2.
CO2 is actually about the weakest of all greenhouse gases.
It just is the most common.

Increases in CO2 follow warming. At best it reinforces a warming trend because oceans outgas CO2 as they warm.

The trendy, media inspired use of 'carbon' for CO2 is incorrect.

Global warming is assumed to be primarily manmade. Calling all of the greenhouse effect as global warming is incorrect.

Not correct. The claim CO2 follow warming is based on a very minute difference in how ice cores are interpreted, and is not at all verified.
It is much more likely CO2 precedes warming.
That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

{...
Ocean acidification
Another effect of global warming on the carbon cycle is ocean acidification. The ocean and the atmosphere constantly act to maintain a state of equilibrium, so a rise in atmospheric carbon naturally leads to a rise in oceanic carbon. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in water it forms hydrogen and bicarbonate ions, which in turn breaks down to hydrogen and carbonate ions.[29] All these extra hydrogen ions increase the acidity of the ocean and make survival harder for planktonic organisms that depend on calcium carbonate to form their shells. A decrease in the base of the food chain will, once again, be destructive to the ecosystems to which they belong. With fewer of these photosynthetic organisms present at the surface of the ocean, less carbon dioxide will be converted to oxygen, thereby allowing the greenhouse gasses to go unchecked.

Steps are being taken to combat the potentially devastating effects of ocean acidification, and scientists worldwide are coming together to solve the problem that is known as “global warming’s evil twin”.

Between 1750 and 2000, surface-ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1, from about 8.2 to about 8.1.[30] Surface-ocean pH has probably not been below 8.1 during the past 2 million years.[30]Projections suggest that surface-ocean pH could decrease by an additional 0.3–0.4 units by 2100.[31] Ocean acidification could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society.
...}
Effects of global warming on oceans - Wikipedia

Clearly the oceans are currently both warming and becoming more acidic, so are absorbing more CO2, not releasing it.

That is clear from the fact your claim "oceans outgas CO2 as they warm" is wrong.
That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

Of course they do. You can prove that by leaving a can of Coke in your car on a 30 degree day for a few hours versus leaving it in your car on a 90 degree day for a few hours.

Maybe you can tell us what happens in each case when you crack your drink open?

That has nothing at all to do with how much gas that the liquid can dissolve.
Both cans of coke have more CO2 in the form of carbonic acid, than they can dissolve.
What keeps the carbonic acid from escaping either can is the high pressure created by the can.
So then the temperature determines the energy this excess CO2 has, and the speed at which it will froth forth.
That tells us nothing about how much CO2 is retained in the can.

Clearly oceans currently are still absorbing very large amounts of CO2, and will absorb a lot more yet.
But the capacity is slowing down if nothing else.

{...
Dickson noted that although the oceans presently take up about one-fourth of the excess CO2 human activities put into the air, that fraction was significantly larger at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That’s for a number of reasons, starting with the simple one that as one dissolves CO2 into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2.

More than 50 years ago, the late Scripps Director Roger Revelle defined a term now known as the Revelle Factor to describe this aspect of the relationship between the changing composition of seawater and the overlying atmosphere.

Dickson noted there are other factors at play. Human fossil fuel use is also behind a general warming trend in the oceans observed over the past 50 years that increases the resistance to CO2 uptake. Furthermore, in the absence of such warming, ocean mixing would normally be expected to be constantly refreshing the water at the ocean’s surface, the place where it meets with air and dissolves CO2. Instead global warming leaves surface water in place to an increasing degree thus slowing down the transfer of CO2from the ocean surface deeper into the ocean. It’s as if the pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere into the surface water and then on deeper into the ocean had slowed down.

This slowing of ocean mixing may have another effect. It stifles the transport of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate from deeper waters to the surface, which diminishes the growth of phytoplankton, which store carbon in their tissue as a product of photosynthesis. The sinking tissue takes the carbon with it to the deep ocean when the organisms die. It’s another way that carbon can be removed from the ocean surface.

All this adds up to what scientists expect to be a gradual slowing of ocean CO2 uptake if human fossil fuel use continues to accelerate. As a smaller fraction of the excess CO2 goes into the oceans, a larger fraction may remain in the atmosphere, and the chemical changes in seawater that can affect organisms will continue to grow in lockstep with the relentless increases in the excess CO2 in the overlying atmosphere caused by human activities.

A major factor governing the rate of uptake of CO2 by the oceans is pace at which global CO2 emissions are increasing over time. Over the past decades, fossil emissions (measured as tons of carbon) have grown at 2 to 4 percent annually, from around 2 billion tons in 1950 to 9 billion tons today. The oceans as a whole have a large capacity for absorbing CO2, but ocean mixing is too slow to have spread this additional CO2 deep into the ocean.

As a result, ocean waters deeper than 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) have a large but still unrealized absorption capacity, said Scripps geochemist Ralph Keeling. The rapid emissions growth is unlikely to continue much longer as the reserves of conventional oil, coal, and gas become depleted and steps are taken to reduce emissions and limit climate impacts. As emissions slow in the future, the oceans will continue to absorb excess CO2 emitted in the past that is still in the air, and this excess will spread into ever-deeper layers of the ocean. The ocean uptake, when expressed as a percent of emissions, will therefore inevitably increase and eventually, 50 to 80 percent of CO2 cumulative emissions will likely reside in the oceans, Keeling said.

– Robert Monroe
...}

How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up?

That has nothing at all to do with how much gas that the liquid can dissolve.

Ummm…..

That is proven to be absolutely backwards, and that oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm.

That's what we're talking about here.​

​

Both cans of coke have more CO2 in the form of carbonic acid, than they can dissolve.​

What keeps the carbonic acid from escaping either can is the high pressure created by the can.​

How much comes out of solution from each can when you open them?​

​

Human fossil fuel use is also behind a general warming trend in the oceans observed over the past 50 years that increases the resistance to CO2 uptake. ​

A warmer ocean resists CO2 uptake? You said, "oceans absorb even more CO2 when warm"
Were you lying then or are you lying now?​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

{...
Published on April 2, 2013
...
It is commonly said that because the radiative power from the Earth system into space is the same as that of a black body with a temperature of about 255K and the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is said to be due to infra-red active gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide.
...}
The Earth Surface Temperature without Greenhouse Gases: The Shade Effect of Infra-Red Active Gases | PSI Intl

But I don't recommend reading thing else in this article, because it is anti global warming propaganda.
It claims greenhouse gases provide cooling shade more than warming, and the reason that is totally and completely wrong is that the incoming is different frequencies, that pass right through greenhouse gases, without any shading effect.
It is only the re-radiated energy that is blocked.
And he also falsely claims that light energy absorbed in the atmosphere, would not warm the air and planet eventually.

the observed average temperature of the Earth’s surface is about 14.5ºC or 287.65K, the surface of the Earth is nearly 33K warmer

14.5 - 33 = -18.5

Thanks.....

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

I was pretty close.

That makes no sense.
The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas warming, so you don't subtract.
The subtraction was already done.
Kelvin is the same size units as centigrade, so there is no conversion necessary.

{... The kelvin is the primary unit of temperature measurement in the physical sciences, but is often used in conjunction with the degree Celsius, which has the same magnitude. The definition implies that absolute zero (0 K) is equivalent to −273.15 °C ...}

The link said that the difference was 33K warmer than it would normally be without any greenhouse gas

Yes. So the temperature would be -18C.
Don't worry about it, it's math, I never expected a liberal like you to understand.

Well yes, if you wanted to say that now the temp is an average of +14.5C.
But I would not normally do that, since at what latitude, what month of year, what time of day, etc.?
It makes more sense to talk about the delta.
And we know greenhouse gases work to make it on average, 33K warmer.
So then why would it be unexpected for more greenhouse gases to not increase the temperature even more?
And the thing about CO2, is that it does not naturally decay once you release another 9 billion tons a year into the atmosphere.
It is going to build up, if oceans and plants can't take up the extra.
And then the CO2 warmth should cause ocean warming to evaporate more H2O, causing the temperature rise from greenhouse gas increase to accelerate.
But there is the factor of more water vapor also causing more reflective clouds.
However, even that is not great because it would make air travel more dangerous.

Well yes, if you wanted to say that now the temp is an average of +14.5C.

Why would I have to say that? Everyone knows that.
You're an idiot, so I'll speak slowly.

The Earth would have an average temp of about -18C if we had no GHGs in the atmosphere.

Clear enough this time, moron?