Climate Physics

[mamooth]

I don't see throwing insults at another and ranting about "Stalinist nutjobs" and "cults" as discussing science. If you want to discuss science, lay off the verbal abuse.

I was discussing science in multiple places on this thread. It's plainly still right up there. As you don't want to talk about it, that means you're doing a drive-by rage-pout, which is boring.

For someone who is as free with the insults as you, crying about insults is really not your best course of action. A saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind.

 

[Sunsettommy]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

That author didn't even know what Henry's Law is. He'd fail freshman chemistry.

Raging cases of EAS -- Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome -- lead to hilarious outcomes.

It is obvious you didn't read the entire presentation, I read when it first came about 14 years ago, he DOES factor in the law, it is mentioned over and over in the charts he posted. Here is one of them,

From Wikipedia:

Temperature dependence

When the temperature of a system changes, the Henry constant also changes. The temperature dependence of equilibrium constants can generally be described with the van 't Hoff equation, which also applies to Henry's law constants:
=====

From a 1940 paper:

ACS Publications

The Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Water at Various Temperatures from 12 to 40° and at Pressures to 500 Atmospheres. Critical Phenomena*

LINK

You are pathetic

 

[JGalt]

I don't see throwing insults at another and ranting about "Stalinist nutjobs" and "cults" as discussing science. If you want to discuss science, lay off the verbal abuse.

I was discussing science in multiple places on this thread. It's plainly still right up there. As you don't want to talk about it, that means you're doing a drive-by rage-pout, which is boring.

For someone who is as free with the insults as you, crying about insults is really not your best course of action. A saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind.

Was that supposed to be like the classic Pee Wee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" defense or something?

Oofda. I am devastated.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're welcome to join in the science discussion on this thread.
Or you can just keep pout-raging at me.
Everyone knows which option you'll choose.

I don't see throwing insults at another and ranting about "Stalinist nutjobs" and "cults" as discussing science. If you want to discuss science, lay off the verbal abuse.
You seem to have a problem with that.

I have to agree with JGalt here ... you have a lot to offer in these types of discussions, Mamooth, but the personal attacks are uncalled for in science ... many times and in many of your posts, all you offer is personal insults ... doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, nobody who respects science will agree with you and always fight against you ... that's what the Flame Room is for ...

 

[mamooth]

I have to agree with JGalt here ... you have a lot to offer in these types of discussions, Mamooth, but the personal attacks are uncalled for in science

They are called for when responding to fringe political cult conspiracy theories that are motivated entirely by politics. Or when responding to drive-by butthurt attacks from someone upset at me over political discussions. You seem to be demanding I respond with science to non-scientific drivel, which is nonsense.

... many times and in many of your posts, all you offer is personal insults ... doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, nobody who respects science will agree with you and always fight against you ... that's what the Flame Room is for ...

As you're not even trying to be consistent with that suggestion, I see no reason to pay any attention to it. Let me know when you choose to apply it to both sides.

 

[mamooth]

You are pathetic

You didn't show where Henry's Law was used. You just put up a random chart and claimed it was true. Your chart didn't have anything to do with Henry's Law.

Here's a thought. Show that you actually understand your pseudoscience. Summarize that propaganda piece for us IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Explain for everyone how it demonstrates that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. If you do understand it and it's sensible, that shouldn't be a problem for you. Tell out how it's been proven that the oceans are outgassing CO2, instead of absorbing it.

I'll be especially interested in how you and the author say the oceans are a CO2 source, given that the effect of Henry's law (more solubility) is about 40 times as much as the effect of temperature rise (less solubility). That's not a small issue.

You won't, of course, as you don't know what it said. It came to a conclusion you liked, so you believed it, end of story. The fact that it kept wandering off into attacking strawmen and political rants should have been a clue that it was a propaganda piece, not a scientific paper.

Oh, I can see another obvious faceplant, his misunderstanding of positive feedback. One of his premises is that positive feedback always runaway feedback, which is plainly false. 1 +1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + 1/16 + ... is a positive feedback series, but it's bounded.

And after scanning the coments, I notice he's big on declaring that any data that contradicts his claims must be some kind of fraud. Standard denier denial of reality.

Oh, make sure you explain why more recent data, specifically the OCO-2 satellite data, shows zero evidence for the "solubility pump" that he claims exist. The directly observed hard data says that theory is wrong, therefore that theory is wrong.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are pathetic

You didn't show where Henry's Law was used. You just put up a random chart and claimed it was true. Your chart didn't have anything to do with Henry's Law.

Here's a thought. Show that you actually understand your pseudoscience. Summarize that propaganda piece for us IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Explain for everyone how it demonstrates that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. If you do understand it and it's sensible, that shouldn't be a problem for you. Tell out how it's been proven that the oceans are outgassing CO2, instead of absorbing it.

I'll be especially interested in how you and the author say the oceans are a CO2 source, given that the effect of Henry's law (more solubility) is about 40 times as much as the effect of temperature rise (less solubility). That's not a small issue.

You won't, of course, as you don't know what it said. It came to a conclusion you liked, so you believed it, end of story. The fact that it kept wandering off into attacking strawmen and political rants should have been a clue that it was a propaganda piece, not a scientific paper.

Oh, I can see another obvious faceplant, his misunderstanding of positive feedback. One of his premises is that positive feedback always runaway feedback, which is plainly false. 1 +1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 + 1/16 + ... is a positive feedback series, but it's bounded.

And after scanning the coments, I notice he's big on declaring that any data that contradicts his claims must be some kind of fraud. Standard denier denial of reality.

Oh, make sure you explain why more recent data, specifically the OCO-2 satellite data, shows zero evidence for the "solubility pump" that he claims exist. The directly observed hard data says that theory is wrong, therefore that theory is wrong.

You are indeed pathetic since I have mentioned this to you which flew right over your head:

Temperature dependence

When the temperature of a system changes, the Henry constant also changes. The temperature dependence of equilibrium constants can generally be described with the van 't Hoff equation, which also applies to Henry's law constants:

P=Kc is the formula for CO2, which is dependent on Temperature stability (Henrys law depends on fixed temperature for stable solubility), when it goes up the formula has to change as well, which reduces solubility and release some CO2 back into the atmosphere. This well shown when El-Nino comes along, the jump in CO2 outgassing shows up on the Mauna Low data, drops when a La-Nina shows up, it shows up that way EVERY SINGLE TIME!

=====

Here are a few published papers showing that CO2 OUTGASSING does occur:


D.: Enhanced CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean from a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, Global Biogeochem

LINK

and,

Dissolved carbon export and CO2 outgassing from the lower Mississippi River – Implications of future river carbon fluxes

LINK

and,

Southern Ocean outgassing initial source of rising CO2 during the last deglaciation

LINK

=====

The Solubility of CO2 in water is well known, as shown here:

Solubility, X_1, of CO2 in water.
Handbook of Chemistry & Physics,
34th ed., 1953, Solubility of Gases
in Water, p. 1532. The curve is the
best–fit, fifth order by the author.
Figure 6

===

When water temperature goes up high enough, CO2 MUST go out when local saturation is reached, this is obvious in the chart. No where does Glassman or me deny, that CO2 sinks into the cooler ocean. He mentions that a number of times, it is when the temperature of water goes up is when CO2 can more easily leave the solution, since it is no longer in equilibrium.

===

You completely ignored that 1940 Solubility paper.....

 

[mamooth]

You are indeed pathetic since I have mentioned this to you which flew right over your head:

No, you evaded all of my questions. I asked you why you think that a 1% effect overrides a 40% effect, and you went off on weird evasions.

If temperature goes up by about 1%, CO2 solubility goes down by about 1%.

If CO2 concentration goes up 40%, CO2 solubility goes up by 40%.

The net effect is that CO2 becomes 39% more soluble. And yet, for inexplicable reasons, you keep claiming that CO2 is becoming less soluble. And you won't explain why, despite being asked repeatedly.

This well shown when El-Nino comes along, the jump in CO2 outgassing shows up on the Mauna Low data, drops when a La-Nina shows up, it shows up that way EVERY SINGLE TIME!

That would be an effect of the lower temps reducing vegetation decay.

Here are a few published papers showing that CO2 OUTGASSING does occur:

That's nice, but as nobody argues that never happens, it's not relevant. We correctly point out that the outgassing is not happening in the oceans now.

The first paper was a hindcast to prehistoric times, so it has no bearing on the current situation. The second was about a river, and rivers are not oceans. Rivers are CO2-saturated, the oceans aren't. The third was also a paleoclimate piece, so it has no bearing on the current situation.

You completely ignored that 1940 Solubility paper.....

It agreed with me, so why discuss it? It said solubility is roughly inversely related to temperature, at least for small temperature changes. Temperature has changed by about 1%, partial pressue has changed by about 40%. That means solubility in the oceans has gone up 39%, and the oceans are CO2 sinks, not CO2 sources.

Please address that. And address the fact that OCO-2 does not show the massive clouds of CO2 in the places that your solubility-pump theory says they have to exist. In addition to the physics saying that your theory is wrong, the directly observed hard data says your theory is wrong, therefore your theory is wrong. That paper really hasn't aged well at all.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is clear you don't understand, since even the NOAA supports me and Dr. Glassman using actual CO2 Flux data as shown HERE:

Distribution Maps for Climatological Mean Sea-air pCO2 Difference

Figure 3 shows the distribution of climatological mean sea-air pCO

difference (

pCO

) during February (Figure 3a) and August (Figure 3b) for the reference year 1995. The yellow-red colors indicate oceanic areas where there is a net release of CO

to the atmosphere, and the blue-purple colors indicate regions where there is a net uptake of CO

. The equatorial Pacific is a strong source of CO

to the atmosphere throughout the year as a result of the upwelling and vertical mixing of deep waters in the central and eastern regions of the equatorial zone. The intensity of the oceanic release of CO

decreases westward in spite of warmer temperatures to the west. High levels of CO

are released in parts of the northwestern subarctic Pacific during the northern winter and the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean during August. Strong convective mixing that brings up deep waters rich in CO

produces the net release of CO

in the subarctic Pacific. The effect of increased DIC concentration surpasses the cooling effect on pCO

in seawater during winter. The high pCO

in the Arabian Sea water is a result of strong upwelling in response to the southwest monsoon. High pCO

values in these areas are reduced by the intense primary production that follows the periods of upwelling.

Two charts in the link

red bolding mine

large size mine

======

I should not have fallen for YOUR Henry's Law Red herring since neither Glassman or NOAA make a specific reference of it, my bad.

You ignored several papers showing that OUTGASSING does happen, including the that 1940 paper you still misunderstood, since it does allow for OUTGASSING, which you continually ignore.

You are fighting the reality that CO2 does leave the ocean water, that is stupid.

=====

Here is an exchange that made me laugh hard:

I wrote: "This well shown when El-Nino comes along, the jump in CO2 outgassing shows up on the Mauna Low data, drops when a La-Nina shows up, it shows up that way EVERY SINGLE TIME! "

Mamooth writes this dumb reply: "That would be an effect of the lower temps reducing vegetation decay."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

El-Nino is about a WARMING area of the East Pacific surface area, WARMING the atmosphere, which is a major contributor of short warming periods have we seen in the last few decades, which then increases the outflow of CO2 from the region, just as I pointed out using Mauna Loa CO2 data.

 

[mamooth]

It is clear you don't understand, since even the NOAA supports me and Dr. Glassman using actual CO2 Flux data as shown HERE:

<snap><snap>

Gomer. Over here. Pay attention.

Nobody is arguing that there no CO2 exchange at the surface. Congratulations for going to such great pains to prove something that everyone accepts.

What's being argued is your weird claim that the oceans are suddenly pumping out vast quantities of CO2, for reasons that you won't provide, and which you won't support with any sort of data, and which physics says is impossible, and which is flatly contradicted by the hard data. (Both OCO-2 and the rising ocean pH levels).

El-Nino is about a WARMING area of the East Pacific surface area, WARMING the atmosphere,

And since you said La Nina before, you're effectively saying I was right again.

 

[esalla]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is certainly happening as it has been happening for some 5 billion years unabated. There has been far more and far less CO2, colder temps and hotter temps both dryer and wetter periods. One factor seldom mentioned is earths magnetic pole reversal of which we are overdue noting that the North Pole is wandering presently. This could slow, stop or reverse deep ocean currents and set into place all sorts of other factors not related to humanity

 

[Crick]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

Hello Macadoodle. I am also a degreed engineer and I have also spent some time examining evidence for and against AGW. I have some comments on your conclusions:

1) It is quite easily demonstrated that increased CO2 can be, and is, both a cause and an effect of warming. That your first comment seems to indicate you are unaware of that point does not lend credence to your claim to be experienced in the field and to have examined "the facts".

2) Greenhouse warming is not dependent on the specific heat of CO2. This comment goes even further to refute your claim of expertise.

3) There is NO correlation between TSI or sunspot activity and current global warming.

Having examined these facts, I must conclude that you are both ignorant on this topic and dishonest about your claim of expertise.

Good day.

 

[Crick]

It is clear you don't understand, since even the NOAA supports me and Dr. Glassman using actual CO2 Flux data as shown HERE:

Distribution Maps for Climatological Mean Sea-air pCO2 Difference

Figure 3 shows the distribution of climatological mean sea-air pCO

difference (

pCO

) during February (Figure 3a) and August (Figure 3b) for the reference year 1995. The yellow-red colors indicate oceanic areas where there is a net release of CO

to the atmosphere, and the blue-purple colors indicate regions where there is a net uptake of CO

. The equatorial Pacific is a strong source of CO

to the atmosphere throughout the year as a result of the upwelling and vertical mixing of deep waters in the central and eastern regions of the equatorial zone. The intensity of the oceanic release of CO

decreases westward in spite of warmer temperatures to the west. High levels of CO

are released in parts of the northwestern subarctic Pacific during the northern winter and the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean during August. Strong convective mixing that brings up deep waters rich in CO

produces the net release of CO

in the subarctic Pacific. The effect of increased DIC concentration surpasses the cooling effect on pCO

in seawater during winter. The high pCO

in the Arabian Sea water is a result of strong upwelling in response to the southwest monsoon. High pCO

values in these areas are reduced by the intense primary production that follows the periods of upwelling.

Two charts in the link

red bolding mine

large size mine

======

I should not have fallen for YOUR Henry's Law Red herring since neither Glassman or NOAA make a specific reference of it, my bad.

You ignored several papers showing that OUTGASSING does happen, including the that 1940 paper you still misunderstood, since it does allow for OUTGASSING, which you continually ignore.

You are fighting the reality that CO2 does leave the ocean water, that is stupid.

=====

Here is an exchange that made me laugh hard:

I wrote: "This well shown when El-Nino comes along, the jump in CO2 outgassing shows up on the Mauna Low data, drops when a La-Nina shows up, it shows up that way EVERY SINGLE TIME! "

Mamooth writes this dumb reply: "That would be an effect of the lower temps reducing vegetation decay."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

El-Nino is about a WARMING area of the East Pacific surface area, WARMING the atmosphere, which is a major contributor of short warming periods have we seen in the last few decades, which then increases the outflow of CO2 from the region, just as I pointed out using Mauna Loa CO2 data.

Just a quick comment for Tommy: gases dissolved in liquid anywhere between totally devoid and saturated with those gases, are both absorbed and released to the atmosphere. That increasing temperature should increase the amount of CO2 being outgassed by the world's oceans does NOT mean the ocean is not also simultaneously absorbing CO2. Think NET TRANSFER.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a bit of confusion about the factoid the OP mentioned ... yes, it is true that the saturation level of CO2 in water goes down with increasing temperature ... that doesn't mean that increasing temperature automatically forces CO2 out of solution, this only occurs if the solution is already saturated with CO2 ...

I think this has more to do with UPWELLING of colder water.. A dynamic "convection" event if ya will.. The phony West coast "oyster die-off" about 10 yr ago was pegged to major pacific "upwelling" near the coast releasing "massive" amounts of CO2... MOST of it is sitting on the floor of Davey Jones's locker, but there are enough places where the normal thermocline is violated to account for substantial CO2 release... -- regardless of what surface temps do...

 

[Old Rocks]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

LOL I have met quite a few like you, ceased learning anything as soon as your received your degree. CO2 was proven to be a GHG in 1859. The effects were roughly estimated in 1896. This was done by competent scientists with an international reputation, not by internet trolls like you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

LOL I have met quite a few like you, ceased learning anything as soon as your received your degree. CO2 was proven to be a GHG in 1859. The effects were roughly estimated in 1896. This was done by competent scientists with an international reputation, not by internet trolls like you.

Ha ha, no actual counterreply to his post one stuff, that would be too hard for you to do.

You haven't read up Arrhenius 1906 paper that dialed back his earlier CO2 warming effect stuff, and he actually praises the CO2 stuff too.