Climate "Science" Question

[saveliberty]

Denialists, not skeptics.

Arctic ice is melting, FACT.

BS, its winter in the Arctic, its freezing and expanding. The Antarctic is melting right now. Its things like this that make believing you guys about weather really hard.

 

[konradv]

Denialists, not skeptics.

Arctic ice is melting, FACT.

BS, its winter in the Arctic, its freezing and expanding. The Antarctic is melting right now. Its things like this that make believing you guys about weather really hard.

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Amazing, no?

Still no explanation of how the oceans are simultaneously absorbing more CO2 and turning to acid and losing CO2 and adding to the "Global Warming Feedback Loop"

 

[wirebender]

THe answer to your original question is simply "shut the hell up and believe".

The mechanism by which warming makes the oceans outgas more CO2 and take up more CO2 at the same time is precisely the same as the mechanism by which AGW causes more and less rain, more and less snow, causes the oceans to warm and cool at the same time and all of the other reality busting claims made by warmists.

This is a matter of faith and religion. Don't expect anything like an actual answer. Some will point you to studies that don't address your question, some will simply say something stupid, and a few who have drunk deeply of the kookaid (rocks) will quote scripture as if that were an answer.

 

[wirebender]

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

If you take the long view, then you should be concerned over the fact that there is ice at the poles. Those of us who take the long view know that ice at one or both of the poles is the anomoly on earth,, not the norm.

 

[saveliberty]

Arctic ice is melting, FACT.

BS, its winter in the Arctic, its freezing and expanding. The Antarctic is melting right now. Its things like this that make believing you guys about weather really hard.

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

Come on konradv, if you took the long view, CO2 cycles would not be a cause for Faithers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OR, can you recommend any Global Warming "Scientist" that I can send the OP to?

Michael Mann? Phil Jones?

MIT Manmade Global Warming Studies?

 

[konradv]

Amazing, no?

Still no explanation of how the oceans are simultaneously absorbing more CO2 and turning to acid and losing CO2 and adding to the "Global Warming Feedback Loop"

More in, more out, More-on!

 

[konradv]

BS, its winter in the Arctic, its freezing and expanding. The Antarctic is melting right now. Its things like this that make believing you guys about weather really hard.

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

Come on konradv, if you took the long view, CO2 cycles would not be a cause for Faithers.

By long view, I mean human terms, not the millions of years when humans weren't around. What's your explanation for the rise in CO2?

 

[konradv]

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

If you take the long view, then you should be concerned over the fact that there is ice at the poles. Those of us who take the long view know that ice at one or both of the poles is the anomoly on earth,, not the norm.

Really? During what part of human history or pre-history have the poles been ice-free?

 

[saveliberty]

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

Come on konradv, if you took the long view, CO2 cycles would not be a cause for Faithers.

By long view, I mean human terms, not the millions of years when humans weren't around. What's your explanation for the rise in CO2?

CO2 cycle.

 

[westwall]

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

Come on konradv, if you took the long view, CO2 cycles would not be a cause for Faithers.

By long view, I mean human terms, not the millions of years when humans weren't around. What's your explanation for the rise in CO2?

What's your explanation for when CO2 levels were 20 times what they are now when man wasn't around? You see dear boy, you have made some extraordinary claims. YOU must prove them. So far we have "the dog ate my raw data" Jones, Michael "ONE TREE" Mann, and Jim "Mr. I havn't met a temperature record I can't falsify" Hansen leading the charge.

And all the while the cycles have been turning and are now going cold and all of a sudden they see their gravy train ending. Thar's panic in them thar univarsities!

 

[Ropey]

Come on konradv, if you took the long view, CO2 cycles would not be a cause for Faithers.

By long view, I mean human terms, not the millions of years when humans weren't around. What's your explanation for the rise in CO2?

What's your explanation for when CO2 levels were 20 times what they are now when man wasn't around? You see dear boy, you have made some extraordinary claims. YOU must prove them. So far we have "the dog ate my raw data" Jones, Michael "ONE TREE" Mann, and Jim "Mr. I havn't met a temperature record I can't falsify" Hansen leading the charge.

And all the while the cycles have been turning and are now going cold and all of a sudden they see their gravy train ending. Thar's panic in them thar univarsities!

It's becoming as clear as day when you push the agenda of their clouds away.

 

[saveliberty]

But...but millions of years doesn't fit my manipulated data!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on konradv, if you took the long view, CO2 cycles would not be a cause for Faithers.

By long view, I mean human terms, not the millions of years when humans weren't around. What's your explanation for the rise in CO2?

CO2 cycle.

Link? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

[rdean]

To the right wing, ALL science is questionable. Not "mysticism". The supernatural is true because, since there is no evidence, it can't really be questioned.

But science? It makes the right wing feel smarter pointing out imaginary flaws in things they refuse to understand.

 

[skookerasbil]

To those on the far left.........only THEIR science is acceptable. New data? New research findings? Get it the **** out of here if it doesnt conform to the science of the annointed.


"Science" indeed!!!


Finally............in 2012...............people are on to the scam................

The only people who care anymore are the true believers and a handful of others............as the Pew Poll clearly indicates!!!

 

[Si modo]

How does global warming both cause CO2 to leech out of the oceans in a "Feedback loop", but simultaneously make the oceans absorb more CO2, turning them acidic?

"Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought"

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought - environment - 25 April 2011 - New Scientist

"Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs"

Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

"A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie."

First, we have to be exact in terminology (not a strong suit of "climate scientists"). CO2 is NOT dissolved in water - carbonates are, though - and the solution, as most, is an equilibrium:
CO2 + 2H2O <--> HCO3- + H3O+ (that's the bicarb and acid)
HCO3- + H2O <--> CO3-- + H3O+ (that's the carbonate and acid)

For the question asking about increased amounts of dissolved CO2 (really as carbonates), there are two mechanisms working:

1. As the solute concentration in the gas (CO2 in air) increases, more of it will become dissolved in the solvent (ocean or any water) because the gradient is higher (difference between concentration of solute in one phase and the concentration of solute in another phase). It's the partition coefficient and one of the reasons that counterflow methods are most effective in separation processes.

2. Also, as a solvent is heated, its ability to solvate the solute increases. For example, a teaspoon of sugar dissolves much more easily in a cup of hot tea than in a glass of iced tea.

HOWEVER, that's simply looking at the thermodynamics of the situation. Reactions can be controlled by thermodynamics OR by kinetics. When there is an opportunity for a release of gas from a liquid, that's a strong driving force because of entropy (gases are much more disordered than liquids and certainly more than solutions and nature strives for disorder). For example, do noting to a bottle of Coke - just let it sit on the counter at constant temperature and pressure - and the dissolved carbonates (bicarb and carbonate) are in the equilibrium above. As soon as the bicarb goes to the side of the equilibrium where it is a gas, it's outta there - outta that liquid system. And, because it left, the equilibrium is driven more to having more bicarbs go to the side of the equilibrium where it becomes a gas.

So, there is a lot of stuff going on in this system, even just considering pure water and pure CO2. And, as usual with the climate, a hell of a lot more is going on. Anyone who claims anything other than 'we need to investigate this further' is simply blowing smoke out their ass.

I hope that helped.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To the right wing, ALL science is questionable. Not "mysticism". The supernatural is true because, since there is no evidence, it can't really be questioned.

But science? It makes the right wing feel smarter pointing out imaginary flaws in things they refuse to understand.

How does global warming both cause CO2 to leech out of the oceans in a "Feedback loop", but simultaneously make the oceans absorb more CO2, turning them acidic?

 

[daveman]

To the right wing, ALL science is questionable. Not "mysticism". The supernatural is true because, since there is no evidence, it can't really be questioned.

But science? It makes the right wing feel smarter pointing out imaginary flaws in things they refuse to understand.

Real scientists alter the model to fit the data.

Climate scientists alter the data to fit the model.

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."