Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

we're far from an upper solubility limit of CO2 in water.

---

I wasn't referring to the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold but rather why the anthropogenic CO2 doesn't all go directly into the ocean sink. Right now, only 2 gigatons of it goes to the ocean sink on a yearly basis.

There is also a physical law that limits the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere so it can't be a forcing agent like CO2 is. Do you know what these 2 physical laws are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

This would make the anthropogenic contributions to be LOWER than the percentages I used in my calculation then.

---

Negative. The numbers you gave added up to 150 gigatons according to randerizer.

I didn't say they added to 150, I said the contributory fraction was about the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Negative. The numbers you gave added up to 150 gigatons according to randerizer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The ice cores clearly show that there is a cyclical process at work. The "balance" shifts back and forth between atmospheric accumulation of CO2 and atmospheric losses of CO2 every 100,000 years. The widespread combustion of fossil fuels is clearly a new thing but I have yet to see any evidence that our anthropogenic CO2 contributions exceed that which nature can handle.

---

Oh, nature can handle anthropogenic CO2. It's just that we will not like how Mother Nature handles it.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I didn't say they added to 150, I said the contributory fraction was about the same.

---

Is that the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I wasn't referring to the amount of CO2 the oceans can hold but rather why the anthropogenic CO2 doesn't all go directly into the ocean sink. Right now, only 2 gigatons of it goes to the ocean sink on a yearly basis.

There is also a physical law that limits the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere so it can't be a forcing agent like CO2 is. Do you know what these 2 physical laws are?

---

The amount of water vapor that can be held in the air is a function of pressure and temperature. Henry's law affects how much CO2 goes into the ocean and Clausius-Clapeyron relation is the most pertinent law relating to phase transition of aqueous water to water vapor. I have spent more time working with these principles in undergrad than I care to remember. There are many other laws involved because the environment involves many different thermodynamic systems. The aforementioned principles focus on the ocean/atmosphere interface.

Neither of these principles refute the argument that water vapor could create a positive feedback loop without the assistance of CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The amount of water vapor that can be held in the air is a function of pressure and temperature. Henry's law affects how much CO2 goes into the ocean and Clausius-Clapeyron relation is the most pertinent law relating to phase transition of aqueous water to water vapor. I have spent more time working with these principles in undergrad than I care to remember. There are many other laws involved because the environment involves many different thermodynamic systems. The aforementioned principles focus on the ocean/atmosphere interface.

Neither of these principles refute the argument that water vapor could create a positive feedback loop without the assistance of CO2.

---

I'd also add that you could possibly idealize the system further into a something that follows Raoult's law, or you could derive independent equations using basic laws of enthalpy, gibbs energies, etc. One specific thermodynamic formulation that might be applied, and which I regularly apply in my research, is the Flory-Huggins equation. Alternately, they basic vapor pressures of water are widely known over a wide range of parameters (although I'm not sure those parameters include the minor components in common salt water, which has a total ionic strength of ~ 0.68M).

Guisslap is right, though - there is no reason that the positive feedback loop from water vapor isn't more prominent. If CO2 only accounts for only a small % of the greenhouse effect, the water vapor would seem to be currently much more relevant to current temperature rises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I bet that if Louisiana wasn't one of the leading petroleum producing States in the Union, there would be a lot more acceptance of AGW in the media and schools.

---

if the opinions of my those who have educated me (in the media and school) had anything to do with my opinions, i would have been a sanctified member of the church of global warming a long time ago. instead, i use the most valuable thing i learned in my school years -- critical thinking. by virtue of my lousiana Tech education, i understand the principles that the science of global warming are based on. by virtue of my experience engineering in the real world with instant results, i know what kind of issues these scientists face when trying to model complex systems. after that, if anything comes up that i don't understand, i study it until i do. only then do i form an opionion on the value of any particular study. i bet the state of lousiana has just about zip to do with my opinion of agw -- i have only lived about 6 years of my life in louisiana, and there ain't much oil in ruston. then again, if you had ever been to ruston, you would know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Oh, wait, you only make use of science when it serves your purposes. Otherwise, it useless.:icon_wink:

---

A lot of that going on. That's the funny thing about science, it's always pliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

if the opinions of my those who have educated me (in the media and school) had anything to do with my opinions, i would have been a sanctified member of the church of global warming a long time ago. instead, i use the most valuable thing i learned in my school years -- critical thinking. by virtue of my lousiana Tech education, i understand the principles that the science of global warming are based on. by virtue of my experience engineering in the real world with instant results, i know what kind of issues these scientists face when trying to model complex systems. after that, if anything comes up that i don't understand, i study it until i do. only then do i form an opionion on the value of any particular study. i bet the state of lousiana has just about zip to do with my opinion of agw -- i have only lived about 6 years of my life in louisiana, and there ain't much oil in ruston. then again, if you had ever been to ruston, you would know that.

---

Hmmmm. There is oil to the north of Ruston, oil to east, oil to west, and oil to the south. But no oil in Ruston.

Seems Ruston is shit out of luck.:bigcry:

In case you don't know it, ArkBob, Louisiana is loaded with oil and natural gas. I wonder what the Shreveport newspaper has to say about AGW? The TV and radio stations in Louisiana?

I hope you find what is causing global warming since you don't think it is our burning fossil fuels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I hope you find what is causing global warming since you don't think it is our burning fossil fuels.

---

I'm pretty sure that the "consensus" on this board have established that it is just a natural part of the carbon cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Doesn't matter. I obviously win hands down in reading comprehension and my acute ability of observation of the world in which I live.

---

You definitely get bonus points for the diversity of your housing complex. I thought of you tonight when I was watching "My Name is Earl."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Why don't you study some real science instead of believing crackpots and paid hacks? Take a look athe NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars at work.:icon_wink:

---

Are you saying your scientists are not paid? Only unpaid scientists are credible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I would not exactly call the NOAA a political body.

---

You are the one who keeps using implications and innuendo about the paychecks of scientists being relevant to their credibility. I'd say anybody whose paycheck is issued by the Federal government is certainly susceptible to political pressure.