Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
As I explained several times now, the reason oceans never outgas CO2 and never approach saturation,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.
As I explained several times now, the reason oceans never outgas CO2 and never approach saturation, is because oceans have a variety of organic and chemical processes that sequester CO2. Coral, limestone, plankton, shellfish, etc., all remove CO2 in carbonates. Except for dynamic equilibrium, oceans always greatly remove OC2 from the atmosphere as a sink, and never ever give up any of that CO2 back again. It is one way, endless, and can never saturate.
-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C..
-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water
-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water
At least we appear to have stopped BillyBoob from repeating this strange piece of gobbledygook.
Do you think we can dissuade him from claiming photons are particles of mass?
-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water
At least we appear to have stopped BillyBoob from repeating this strange piece of gobbledygook.
Do you think we can dissuade him from claiming photons are particles of mass?
Or that photons are magnetic.
-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water
At least we appear to have stopped BillyBoob from repeating this strange piece of gobbledygook.
Do you think we can dissuade him from claiming photons are particles of mass?
Or that photons are magnetic.
Yoo hoo....Billy? Are you out there?
You got some 'splainin to do
