Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270b.gif

That chart is bogus.
From wikipedia:
preindustrial CO2: 280 ppm
delta CO2 since 1750: 107 ppm
total CO2: 387 ppm

That works out that current CO2 levels are 28% man-made.

I'm surprised - as a scientist, you should know better than to assume that natural CO2 levels are static.
They never have been in history before man. Therefore, your method of calculation is seriously flawed.

Natural CO2 will be higher during warmer periods. Thus the actual level of man made CO2 must be less than 28% - and probably significantly so, because it was a warming period that started the man into the industrial age, so your pre-industrial figure is from when the planet was cooler and thus the oceans were releasing less CO2.

How many tons of CO2 do the oceans release for every °C increase in temperature?
If you can't answer that, your 7-up bottle means absolutely nothing.

I don't know how many per degree, I could find out if you want, but oceans are the largest source of CO2 by a significant factor.
The CO2 we produce is insignificant to what the Oceans produce.

You probably won't hear that on NPR though.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Especially considering that a 7-up bottle is keeping CO2 in solution at pressures higher than 1atm anyhow.

I used 7UP because it is easy to detect the loss of CO2 associated with temperature.
You can see it happen for a couple bucks.

However, I know you specifically are aware of warming water and gas release.
Other people here, maybe they never had high school chemistry. I'm guessing you at least had organic chemistry, no?

here's a plot which illustrates the ridiculousness of your assertion that this is from natural exsolution.

Over the past 4 runs of the 100 ka ice age cycle, we have never seen CO2 concentrations like we see today, even though it was warmer than it is today in past interglacials.

Interestingly, dissolved CO2 decreases pH.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Note that at the interglacial 300,000 years ago, temperature was 2 degrees C above what it is now, but CO2 was lower than current levels.

I blame the lack of 7UP

I never said that we weren't increasing CO2. We are, we are pumping carbon out of the ground and adding it to the carbon cycle.

Thus, the extremely small percentage we are responsible for is building up and causing noticeably higher levels than natural. However, what we produce is still a very small percentage compared to what nature puts out, and given that were are still coming out of a mini ice age, warming oceans are not absorbing it.

Remember the lungless salamander?
The one that evolved in the new world, crossed the bering straight to Asia, did some more evolving there, and then came back?

Being lungless, they die (drown) in water. They don't even have a larval stage in water - that happens in the eggs (laid on land) and they emerge adult stage. Thus, rivers are not a conduit for spread. Seems to me it must have been quite a bit warmer up at the bering straight when they did this migration to asia and back then it is now, wouldn't you suspect?

That (and many orher clues) make it quite clear that the earth has had long periods where it is significantly warmer than it is now. IE - we are still on a natural upswing from the last ice age, no?

Last edited by resedit (2009-07-07 7:44 pm)

That (and many orher clues) make it quite clear that the earth has had long periods where it is significantly warmer than it is now. IE - we are still on a natural upswing from the last ice age, no?

since the holocene climactic optimum, 8k years ago, the global average temperature had been decreasing until 250 years ago.

Last edited by Chickenhawk (2009-07-07 7:49 pm)

resedit wrote:

I never said that we weren't increasing CO2. We are, we are pumping carbon out of the ground and adding it to the carbon cycle.

Thus, the extremely small percentage we are responsible for is building up and causing noticeably higher levels than natural. However, what we produce is still a very small percentage compared to what nature puts out, and given that were are still coming out of a mini ice age, warming oceans are not absorbing it.

As a simple matter of logic, this doesn't necessarily follow. 

That (and many orher clues) make it quite clear that the earth has had long periods where it is significantly warmer than it is now. IE - we are still on a natural upswing from the last ice age, no?

Even I can tell that this isn't relevant.  It's always puzzled me why those who reject the consensus go on and on about prior temperatures, as if that fact isn't terribly basic knowledge of those who study climate.

mo' ron wrote:

And you're right that the earth's climate has been different. Neither Al Gore or the IPCC, or anyone else disputes this, it's a blatantly obvious fact. But the Earth was left alone to naturally sort out its GHG sources/sinks to reach a new equilibrium. What HASN'T happened before, and what all those pesky scientists are concerned about, is what happens when you have an artificial source of GHGes that have no natural sinks? What happens? The data indicates wonky things with the climate, is what (ie. climate change).

Actually, what the scientists are concerned about is the implications it has on human civilization, and with overall biodiversity. Nobody has a doubt that the Earth will eventually sort this all out, but it will occur on a timescale well outside our lifespans. Meanwhile there could be catastrophic events affecting human civilization and overall biodiversity.

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'

Is the ocean carbon sink sinking

bratboy wrote:

Even I can tell that this isn't relevant.  It's always puzzled me why those who reject the consensus go on and on about prior temperatures, as if that fact isn't terribly basic knowledge of those who study climate.

Why isn't it relevant?

Wait... are they soaking up or outgassing?