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

[Rigby5]

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.

The overall temperature does not change.
The ice age cycles have cold and hot swings, but each cycle is identical to the last, for the last 12 ice ages at least.
Only now is the question, because we are artificially initiating another warming cycle on top of the last one that is not gone yet.
Only now are we breaking the stasis of the repeating ice age cycles.
The definition of statis did not say just barely changes, but an equilibrium that has a constant fluctuation that does not change and always repeats identically.

The description of Venus said it was 3 times hotter than it should be from the sun alone, due to greenhouse gas heat retention.
Venus is 460 degrees C. That would be 153 degrees C, but that is because of the close proximity of the sun. Regardless of what the Earth could reach as its maximum, clearly we would not want to find out. A positive feedback, race condition where more retained heat cause even more greenhouse gases, such as from the oceans evaporating and frozen methane melting, would not be pleasant.

 

[Rigby5]

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?​

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.
We just know the energy is greater with a warm can.
Even the water expands and contracts with temperature, and that has nothing to do with anything being dissolved.

If you read the article, the resistance to CO2 uptake they were referring to was the slowing down of mixing cycles in the oceans.
The bottom and top are not mixing as they used to.
So the bottom water that could absorb more CO2 is not coming up to the surface, where it could absorb more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The overall temperature does not change.
The ice age cycles have cold and hot swings, but each cycle is identical to the last, for the last 12 ice ages at least.
Only now is the question, because we are artificially initiating another warming cycle on top of the last one that is not gone yet.
Only now are we breaking the stasis of the repeating ice age cycles.
The definition of statis did not say just barely changes, but an equilibrium that has a constant fluctuation that does not change and always repeats identically.

The description of Venus said it was 3 times hotter than it should be from the sun alone, due to greenhouse gas heat retention.
Venus is 460 degrees C. That would be 153 degrees C, but that is because of the close proximity of the sun. Regardless of what the Earth could reach as its maximum, clearly we would not want to find out. A positive feedback, race condition where more retained heat cause even more greenhouse gases, such as from the oceans evaporating and frozen methane melting, would not be pleasant.

The overall temperature does not change.

Global temperature is the same during an ice age as it is now?
That's hilarious!

The definition of statis did not say just barely changes,

stasis: a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.

but an equilibrium that has a constant fluctuation that does not change and always repeats identically.

Now, if you want to say that 20 years at 180F and 20 years at -60F is stasis, because it averages out to the 60F we currently enjoy, well, I already knew you were an idiot.

Tell you what, go away for awhile, double your IQ and then come back.
I'd like to have a debate with an equal. In the meantime, even though you might like the taste,
the paint chips aren't doing you any favors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?​

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.
We just know the energy is greater with a warm can.
Even the water expands and contracts with temperature, and that has nothing to do with anything being dissolved.

If you read the article, the resistance to CO2 uptake they were referring to was the slowing down of mixing cycles in the oceans.
The bottom and top are not mixing as they used to.
So the bottom water that could absorb more CO2 is not coming up to the surface, where it could absorb more.

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.

Have you tried it? You can get a decent feel for which dissolves more CO2, the hot one or the cold one.
Run the test, report back.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The overall temperature does not change.
The ice age cycles have cold and hot swings, but each cycle is identical to the last, for the last 12 ice ages at least.
Only now is the question, because we are artificially initiating another warming cycle on top of the last one that is not gone yet.
Only now are we breaking the stasis of the repeating ice age cycles.
The definition of statis did not say just barely changes, but an equilibrium that has a constant fluctuation that does not change and always repeats identically.

The description of Venus said it was 3 times hotter than it should be from the sun alone, due to greenhouse gas heat retention.
Venus is 460 degrees C. That would be 153 degrees C, but that is because of the close proximity of the sun. Regardless of what the Earth could reach as its maximum, clearly we would not want to find out. A positive feedback, race condition where more retained heat cause even more greenhouse gases, such as from the oceans evaporating and frozen methane melting, would not be pleasant.

The overall temperature does not change.

Global temperature is the same during an ice age as it is now?
That's hilarious!

The definition of statis did not say just barely changes,

stasis: a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.

but an equilibrium that has a constant fluctuation that does not change and always repeats identically.

Now, if you want to say that 20 years at 180F and 20 years at -60F is stasis, because it averages out to the 60F we currently enjoy, well, I already knew you were an idiot.

Tell you what, go away for awhile, double your IQ and then come back.
I'd like to have a debate with an equal. In the meantime, even though you might like the taste,
the paint chips aren't doing you any favors.

Of course ice ages cycles have equlibrium.
We know they are about 120,000 years long, and we know we have have at least 12 in a row that are almost identical, and always come back to the same even point.
The whole point is that life on the planet did not die out, because the planet has a constant equilibrium in its temperature cycles.

That looks incredibly regular and in equilibrium to me.
Compare that even and regular ice age equilibrium with the larger picture when we go back half a billion years.
Clearly way back, there was no equilibrium as has been for the last 3 million years.

 

[Rigby5]

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?​

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.
We just know the energy is greater with a warm can.
Even the water expands and contracts with temperature, and that has nothing to do with anything being dissolved.

If you read the article, the resistance to CO2 uptake they were referring to was the slowing down of mixing cycles in the oceans.
The bottom and top are not mixing as they used to.
So the bottom water that could absorb more CO2 is not coming up to the surface, where it could absorb more.

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.

Have you tried it? You can get a decent feel for which dissolves more CO2, the hot one or the cold one.
Run the test, report back.

As I explained before, temperature is energy so will effect the pressure, which has nothing at all to do with dissolved gas capacity.
If you place pure cold water with no dissolved gases in it at all in cans, and heat one can more than the other that is still cold, the water will squirt of of the warmer can when opened, because water expands when hotter. It does not have to do any with how much gas can be dissolved. If you put no water in the cans, but instead just CO2, the hotter one will then also have more thrust when opened.
That tells us nothing about how much CO2 can be absorbed in water.

I will try looking it up to find something more definitive.

 

[xband]

I just wish that Global Warming would hurry up and get to the Mid-West.

 

[Rigby5]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

 

[Rigby5]

I just wish that Global Warming would hurry up and get to the Mid-West.

Global warming adds energy to weather, so that it no longer stays in one of the 6 conventions zones.
When arctic weather actually can get down to the southern US states, that is due to global warming giving it far more energy than it used to have.

 

[IanC]

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?​

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.
We just know the energy is greater with a warm can.
Even the water expands and contracts with temperature, and that has nothing to do with anything being dissolved.

If you read the article, the resistance to CO2 uptake they were referring to was the slowing down of mixing cycles in the oceans.
The bottom and top are not mixing as they used to.
So the bottom water that could absorb more CO2 is not coming up to the surface, where it could absorb more.

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.

Have you tried it? You can get a decent feel for which dissolves more CO2, the hot one or the cold one.
Run the test, report back.

"
Temperature Dependence
As with other gases, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water
decreases as the temperature increases. You can see this for
yourself by observing what happens when you heat a can of
soda.
As the temperature of the oceans increases with increasing
global temperature (caused by greenhouse gases), carbon
dioxide will tend to outgas from the oceans. This will increase
the atmospheric concentration of CO2, causing further
increases in temperature of the atmosphere, etc.
"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?​

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.
We just know the energy is greater with a warm can.
Even the water expands and contracts with temperature, and that has nothing to do with anything being dissolved.

If you read the article, the resistance to CO2 uptake they were referring to was the slowing down of mixing cycles in the oceans.
The bottom and top are not mixing as they used to.
So the bottom water that could absorb more CO2 is not coming up to the surface, where it could absorb more.

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.

Have you tried it? You can get a decent feel for which dissolves more CO2, the hot one or the cold one.
Run the test, report back.

As I explained before, temperature is energy so will effect the pressure, which has nothing at all to do with dissolved gas capacity.
If you place pure cold water with no dissolved gases in it at all in cans, and heat one can more than the other that is still cold, the water will squirt of of the warmer can when opened, because water expands when hotter. It does not have to do any with how much gas can be dissolved. If you put no water in the cans, but instead just CO2, the hotter one will then also have more thrust when opened.
That tells us nothing about how much CO2 can be absorbed in water.

I will try looking it up to find something more definitive.

As I explained before, temperature is energy so will effect the pressure, which has nothing at all to do with dissolved gas capacity.

Temperature will affect the pressure? Why would the pressure increase?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

 

[IanC]

Not sure where your getting your numbers, but they are wrong!

Okay. Unlike you I am willing to explain my thought processes.

I tried to figure out what actual condition you had garbled to come up with to get a number like -80F as an important figure for CO2.

My best guess was that you simply screwed up the temperature units for the Wien's Law temperature for CO2's main frequency of 15 microns.

That is only my guess. You have not been forthcoming in explaining what you were actually thinking.

You claim my other numbers were wrong. I just went to an online Wien's Law calculator and inserted numbers. How did you get yours? How could you possibly get a lower temperature for a higher energy frequency?

Hey Billy! How come you are ignoring this thread?

Here is your chance to educate us as to why -80F is a special temperature for CO2.

At the very least you could explain why a higher energy wavelength is associated with a lower temperature.

 

[Rigby5]

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?​

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.
We just know the energy is greater with a warm can.
Even the water expands and contracts with temperature, and that has nothing to do with anything being dissolved.

If you read the article, the resistance to CO2 uptake they were referring to was the slowing down of mixing cycles in the oceans.
The bottom and top are not mixing as they used to.
So the bottom water that could absorb more CO2 is not coming up to the surface, where it could absorb more.

We don't know how much CO2 comes out of each can at different temperatures.

Have you tried it? You can get a decent feel for which dissolves more CO2, the hot one or the cold one.
Run the test, report back.

"
Temperature Dependence
As with other gases, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water
decreases as the temperature increases. You can see this for
yourself by observing what happens when you heat a can of
soda.
As the temperature of the oceans increases with increasing
global temperature (caused by greenhouse gases), carbon
dioxide will tend to outgas from the oceans. This will increase
the atmospheric concentration of CO2, causing further
increases in temperature of the atmosphere, etc.
"

Irrelevant for 2 reasons.
One is that the oceans are not anywhere near their saturation point, and are still absorbing massive amounts of excess CO2.
Two is that the organic and chemical components of the ocean to remove carbon from the water, is vastly larger and more significant than even the amount of CO2 the oceans can absorb by solubility of CO2 in the water.
All the plankton, coral, shellfish, etc. are sucking up CO2 like crazy.
Even with a several degree rise in ocean temperatures, the oceans will still be absorbing huge amounts of excess CO2.
They will never be releasing any CO2 (except as insignificant dynamic equilibrium).

 

[Rigby5]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics, but to disagree with your claim about the oceans, because ocean temperature is not relevant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics, but to disagree with your claim about the oceans, because ocean temperature is not relevant.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics,

It's not my physics, it's just physics. And actually, when discussing solubility, that's more like chemistry.

but to disagree with your claim about the oceans

My claim was that your claim, "warmer water can hold more dissolved CO2" is wrong.

because ocean temperature is not relevant

Why not? Warmer oceans hold less CO2, colder oceans hold more CO2.
That's very relevant when I point out your error.

 

[Rigby5]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics, but to disagree with your claim about the oceans, because ocean temperature is not relevant.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics,

It's not my physics, it's just physics. And actually, when discussing solubility, that's more like chemistry.

but to disagree with your claim about the oceans

My claim was that your claim, "warmer water can hold more dissolved CO2" is wrong.

because ocean temperature is not relevant

Why not? Warmer oceans hold less CO2, colder oceans hold more CO2.
That's very relevant when I point out your error.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit, regardless of any likely temperature.
The ocean is still absorbing over 26% of the CO2 we produce annually, so then clearly there still is a huge capacity left, and a few degrees is not going to significantly diminish that capacity.

I already explained that the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold in solution also is not relevant because the organic and chemical processes of the ocean also are a far larger factor in terms of scubbing CO2 from the air.
Remember that all carbonates, like plankton, coral, shellfish, etc., are building their shells from CO2 taken out of the air.

But yes, you are correct that warmer water does have a lower limit on the amount of dissolved CO2 it can hold in solution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics, but to disagree with your claim about the oceans, because ocean temperature is not relevant.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics,

It's not my physics, it's just physics. And actually, when discussing solubility, that's more like chemistry.

but to disagree with your claim about the oceans

My claim was that your claim, "warmer water can hold more dissolved CO2" is wrong.

because ocean temperature is not relevant

Why not? Warmer oceans hold less CO2, colder oceans hold more CO2.
That's very relevant when I point out your error.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit, regardless of any likely temperature.
The ocean is still absorbing over 26% of the CO2 we produce annually, so then clearly there still is a huge capacity left, and a few degrees is not going to significantly diminish that capacity.

I already explained that the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold in solution also is not relevant because the organic and chemical processes of the ocean also are a far larger factor in terms of scubbing CO2 from the air.
Remember that all carbonates, like plankton, coral, shellfish, etc., are building their shells from CO2 taken out of the air.

But yes, you are correct that warmer water does have a lower limit on the amount of dissolved CO2 it can hold in solution.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit,

Warmer water has a lower limit.
Because your claim was wrong. Wrong, the opposite of right.

 

[Rigby5]

Ok, this is what I just found.

{...
Variation in dissolved gases
Some of the properties of seawater affect how much gas can be dissolved in it:

• Cold water holds more gas than warm water. You will have seen this with bottles of fizzy drink, which are basically carbon dioxide in water. A warm fizzy drink cannot hold its gas, so as soon as you open a bottle of it, the carbon dioxide leaves the water in a big spray of bubbles. It is less messy to open a cold bottle of fizzy drink.
• Seawater with low salinity holds more gas than high salinity water.
• Deep water, which has a high pressure, holds more gas than shallow water.

The use and creation of dissolved gases by living things can over-ride the effect of these properties. For example, warm water with lots of plankton in it can hold more carbon dioxide than cold water with few living things in it.
...}

And while that seems similar to what Toddsterpatriot is saying, I don't buy it because clearly the ocean is not releasing CO2 into the air now.
The oceans are still absorbing CO2 out of the air, even though they are warming.
So clearly right now, atmospheric CO2 is not lagging warming, but leading it.
The oceans are not releasing CO2 into the air as they warm, but they are still absorbing even more of the excess CO2 we are adding.

When you have the saturation of a fizzy drink, the claim would seem valid that CO2 follows temperature.
But it never gets anywhere near that concentration.
And the oceans never become a CO2 outgassing source.
It does not at all happen.
All life in the oceans would die before they got hot enough to start outgassing CO2 instead of absorbing it.

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics, but to disagree with your claim about the oceans, because ocean temperature is not relevant.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics,

It's not my physics, it's just physics. And actually, when discussing solubility, that's more like chemistry.

but to disagree with your claim about the oceans

My claim was that your claim, "warmer water can hold more dissolved CO2" is wrong.

because ocean temperature is not relevant

Why not? Warmer oceans hold less CO2, colder oceans hold more CO2.
That's very relevant when I point out your error.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit, regardless of any likely temperature.
The ocean is still absorbing over 26% of the CO2 we produce annually, so then clearly there still is a huge capacity left, and a few degrees is not going to significantly diminish that capacity.

I already explained that the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold in solution also is not relevant because the organic and chemical processes of the ocean also are a far larger factor in terms of scubbing CO2 from the air.
Remember that all carbonates, like plankton, coral, shellfish, etc., are building their shells from CO2 taken out of the air.

But yes, you are correct that warmer water does have a lower limit on the amount of dissolved CO2 it can hold in solution.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit,

Warmer water has a lower limit.
Because your claim was wrong. Wrong, the opposite of right.

No, you claim that CO2 does not precede global warming but follows it, is wrong, because the oceans have never reached a CO2 saturation point.
Oceans always are constantly extracting vast amount of carbon and sequestering it in the form of carbonates, like limestone.
So that never have the oceans ever outgassed CO2, but instead have always been absorbing CO2, constantly.

The fact in theory a maximum CO2 absorption can be reached that would be reduced with temperature, has nothing to do with ice ages or global warming because the oceans have never approached that limit.
If it ever did, all life in the oceans would have been long dead, since they could not take living in carbonic acid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cold water holds more gas than warm water.

Hold on......that's the opposite of what you claimed.
Weird.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics, but to disagree with your claim about the oceans, because ocean temperature is not relevant.

Yes, the point of that post was to agree with your physics,

It's not my physics, it's just physics. And actually, when discussing solubility, that's more like chemistry.

but to disagree with your claim about the oceans

My claim was that your claim, "warmer water can hold more dissolved CO2" is wrong.

because ocean temperature is not relevant

Why not? Warmer oceans hold less CO2, colder oceans hold more CO2.
That's very relevant when I point out your error.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit, regardless of any likely temperature.
The ocean is still absorbing over 26% of the CO2 we produce annually, so then clearly there still is a huge capacity left, and a few degrees is not going to significantly diminish that capacity.

I already explained that the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold in solution also is not relevant because the organic and chemical processes of the ocean also are a far larger factor in terms of scubbing CO2 from the air.
Remember that all carbonates, like plankton, coral, shellfish, etc., are building their shells from CO2 taken out of the air.

But yes, you are correct that warmer water does have a lower limit on the amount of dissolved CO2 it can hold in solution.

As I have said, post #74, the theoretical maximum of how much the oceans can hold in dissolved CO2 is not relevant because we have not at all approached the limit,

Warmer water has a lower limit.
Because your claim was wrong. Wrong, the opposite of right.

No, you claim that CO2 does not precede global warming but follows it, is wrong, because the oceans have never reached a CO2 saturation point.
Oceans always are constantly extracting vast amount of carbon and sequestering it in the form of carbonates, like limestone.
So that never have the oceans ever outgassed CO2, but instead have always been absorbing CO2, constantly.

The fact in theory a maximum CO2 absorption can be reached that would be reduced with temperature, has nothing to do with ice ages or global warming because the oceans have never approached that limit.
If it ever did, all life in the oceans would have been long dead, since they could not take living in carbonic acid.

No, you claim that CO2 does not precede global warming but follows it, is wrong,

Where did I claim that?

So that never have the oceans ever outgassed CO2, but instead have always been absorbing CO2, constantly.

Oceans only absorb, never release CO2?
That's an even funnier error than your first error.
You should stop.