Top 10 global warming predictions

[Kuhn]

I thought the last ice age was caused by a big meteorite striking earth and the big dust cloud 'shaded' the sun causing the cooling. 

Things change I guess. Nowadays that same thing would seem to cause global warming.

[MORAY37]

I know you love the oceans but this time you stepped in something that might be wet but I wouldnt swim in it. I did read and I learned from reading which you dont seem to do so well at (or failed research 101). I think you take things too seriously and love to put people down. Please refrain from this in the future it makes you look bad.

From Harvard Magazine:

http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-ocean-carbon-cycle.html

From NewScientist:  (This is actually an attempt to FORCE global warming to be a viable topic)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html

Hmmmmmm you were wrong on that one!

From HabitableZone:

http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/531704.html

Chalenge, did you even read past the first paragraph on your first source?  I mean past the point where you thought you were already right, and you weren't....LOL.  If you did, you'd see it's exactly what I said.  The only way H2O takes up any CO2 by itself, is by making carbolic acid (c6H5OH), and that is incredibly slow, and involves breaking the strong bonds H2O contains.

This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science.

 If you look back, you might understand what it is the folks at Harvard were talking about.

[Chalenge]

Yes I can see how you might reach that view point Moray especially if you stopped reading after the first sentence of the second paragraph. There are over 286000 articles on how and why the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide. Yes it is slow but given that is a life-cycle process of the Earth it goes on continuously and always will go on and on a massive scale given the size of the oceans (over 70% of the Earth). I realize that complex systems like the Earth and its oceans are more then can be duplicated in laboratories which is why it works contrary to popular thinking but the fact is that the ocean does absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide and it also releases massive amounts.

The sun warms the seas (which warm much more slowly then terra firma and humans) and just when we think its hot it starts cooling down as the ocean releases CO2. Are the two related? I think there is a direct connection between the Sun warming the sea and CO2 emissions. I dont know about CO2 releases and global cooling. The picture that Gore uses in his argument is that the two are related. It is true and it is also true that the CO2 emissions trail the warming of the Earth by about 800 years. So if you yell and scream and pass laws to prohibit CO2 emissions prepare to never exhale again and prepare to hold the oceans in contempt.

Cows burp poop and politicians deliver speeches and the result is the same.

Thats about what your selling too.

Merry Christmas

[MORAY37]

Yes I can see how you might reach that view point Moray especially if you stopped reading after the first sentence of the second paragraph. There are over 286000 articles on how and why the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide. Yes it is slow but given that is a life-cycle process of the Earth it goes on continuously and always will go on and on a massive scale given the size of the oceans (over 70% of the Earth). I realize that complex systems like the Earth and its oceans are more then can be duplicated in laboratories which is why it works contrary to popular thinking but the fact is that the ocean does absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide and it also releases massive amounts.

The sun warms the seas (which warm much more slowly then terra firma and humans) and just when we think its hot it starts cooling down as the ocean releases CO2. Are the two related? I think there is a direct connection between the Sun warming the sea and CO2 emissions. I dont know about CO2 releases and global cooling. The picture that Gore uses in his argument is that the two are related. It is true and it is also true that the CO2 emissions trail the warming of the Earth by about 800 years. So if you yell and scream and pass laws to prohibit CO2 emissions prepare to never exhale again and prepare to hold the oceans in contempt.

Cows burp poop and politicians deliver speeches and the result is the same.

Thats about what your selling too.

Merry Christmas

The difference between us is that you've already decided that you are smarter than those that do the work.  Somewhere along the lines of Lazs and "It's the sun, stupid." , like that's the last place anyone with a PhD would look.....

Your argument is flawed by one simple point.  We've already proven that by absorbing CO2 into the ocean slowly, you make carbonic acid.  This is the way H2O can take up any CO2 by itself.  By making carbonic acid, you lower the pH of the ocean due to raising the acidity.  We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner (http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249)

So then.... if the ocean is releasing all this C02 because you say it's the sun warming it and releasing the CO2, doesn't that mean that the carbonic acid was already there?  The pH of the ocean should then be rising, by your argument, due to the release of all this stored CO2, when in fact it has been proofed repeatedly that the exact opposite?  Explain to me if I've misunderstood your argument.

CO2 lagging previous temperature changes is easy..... Those were natural climate shifts (see: WE WEREN'T PUSHING CO2 into the system), and were not initiated with a change in atmospheric content....  Meaning something else changed to start the shift (generally orbital cycles, Milankovich cycles), and the feedback loop of CO2 pushed further. CO2 didn't start it, it pushed the balance after it became higher in concentration.  The only way that your skeptic "lag theory" could hold any amount of credence is if CO2, but more importantly CH4, were not greenhouse gases.  If this were true, then it could be stated that a natural exterior force drove the previous climate shifts, and that gaseous concentrations were a byproduct, having nothing to do with the climate shift.  We both already know that CO2 and CH4 are proven greenhouse gases.

I'm not selling you anything.  But I am glad to you are reading, at least.  Now drop the preconceived notions that you have, and maybe you'll see the forest for the trees.

[MORAY37]

I thought the last ice age was caused by a big meteorite striking earth and the big dust cloud 'shaded' the sun causing the cooling.

 

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago.  There are no impact craters large enough to cause what you describe of that age.  Perhaps you are confusing the end of the Cretaceous Period, when the dinosaurs went extinct, 65 million years ago.... around 928 different "ice ages" ago. (on a 70,000 year average timeline of glaciation)

Ice cores are used to obtain a high resolution record of recent glaciation. It confirms the chronology of the marine isotopic stages. Ice core data shows that the last 400,000 years have consisted of short interglacials (10,000 to 30,000 years) about as warm as the present alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacials substantially colder than present. The new EPICA Antarctic ice core has revealed that between 400,000 and 780,000 years ago, interglacials occupied a considerably larger proportion of each glacial/interglacial cycle, but were not as warm as subsequent interglacials.

[Chalenge]

Acidification is defined as an increase in the concentration of H + in a solution or a lowering of a solutions pH. Ocean acidification is therefore the reduction of the pH of the world's oceans and not the increase you are looking for. I think you have the process inverted which is precisely the same thing Gore did.

[MORAY37]

Acidification is defined as an increase in the concentration of H + in a solution or a lowering of a solutions pH. Ocean acidification is therefore the reduction of the pH of the world's oceans and not the increase you are looking for. I think you have the process inverted which is precisely the same thing Gore did.

Can you read?


What I just typed------->

Your argument is flawed by one simple point.  We've already proven that by absorbing CO2 into the ocean slowly, you make carbonic acid.  This is the way H2O can take up any CO2 by itself.  By making carbonic acid, you lower the pH of the ocean due to raising the acidity.

Raising the acidity (lowering the pH) IS an increase in hydrogen ions.  Your comprehension skills lag behind the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  Please feel free to re-read my previous post until the little light bulb goes off over your head.  I was showing you that your logic in the release of CO2 from the ocean is inherently flawed due to the pH of the oceans are currently going...here I'll put it in bold for you and capitalize...DOWN and/or DECREASING, REDUCING, LOWERING.  Corresponding with you is almost as difficult as Lazs...if that is even possible. 

[Widewing]

Challenge, with all due respect.....
<snip>
Like most, please take a few minutes to learn prior to posting, or simply ask. 

What respect? You show zero respect to anyone who disagrees with you.

The impression anyone will get from your posts on climate discussion is that you're a self-aggrandizing windbag. There isn't the slightest doubt that you'll verify this with your reply....

You stated in your last post; "We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner."

My question is, who is "we" and what did you contribute to the study?


Widewing

[Buzzard7]

This may be a dumb question. How fast does the CO we emit from all these cars and factories change to CO2?

[drdeathx]

Aces high members are now physics experts!!!! Woot Woot!


Moray,quit pretending you know anything about the ice age. I studied it in college and you are copying all your info from the internet. You started out with this comment which is far from any truth. You simply gave your opinion which to the average person may make sense but it is untrue. It can snow at any temperature. Each of your opinions here are not entirely correct.

Most of these arguments are theories. We know mankind has not helped in this "climate change". There is a high probability that we are in global warming status. We actually have measuring sticks available to see it happening. If this is true we could be in trouble sooner than later so we should not ignore it or say it is not true. Maybe my belief is not true but it seems to be what is happening.

What really is the norm for temperatures on earth. We only have hundreds of years of data. The current norm is measured in a short period(actually a small fraction) of time.

Weather happens in cycles. El Nino and La Nina has a lot to do with your southwest drought situation. Theoretically, this could happen weather we have global warming or not. I do however believe global warming is contributing to this. Although it can snow at any temperature, heaviest snows do happen closer to the freezing mark. I do give you that. Heavy snows generally lead to lower temps because it reflects sunlight. Like the ice age, if we get heavier snow like we did 20, 30, 100 years ago, maybe the avg. temps will drop. This still will not replace the glaciers that have mass melted. It will take hundreds of years to replace that damage which basically happened over a 20 year period.

Mount Saint Helens had a huge effect on our avg. temps for many years. There are many volcanos that erupt under our oceans that emit gases into the atmosphere that many of us never really hear of. Most of these are inactive but they do exist. 1 major eruption anywhere in the world could change things quickly.

There just are too many variables that change things.

You stare confirmation in the face with the simple statement..."in my 50 years of living here, I have never seen that much snow" and yet you misinterpret that to mean climate change is FALSE. Would you like to take a minute and think of what you just said?  In actuality, more snow is directly associated with a warmer planet, due to the fact that there is more water in the atmosphere to work with, due to higher levels of evaporation.  Local temperature dictates how that precipitation will fall...in your case it fell as snow.   If the globe was cooling, snowfall and all precipitation in general would decrease overall, where in actuality, overall precip levels have increased steadily.  The things that have changed are the ways that precipitation gets distributed, which is why the southeast is in such a bad drought for 15 years. 
 

Making an assertion that global warming is false because it's cold in winter in your backyard is about as idiotic as saying it's true because it's hot during the summer.


 

[bozon]

Muray, CO2 absorption in the oceans is a "slow" process, but what is "slow"? If you look at your own signature, you will notice that the ocean covers 2/3 of the earth - That is a "large" surface area.  The rate of absorption is proportional to the area of the gas-liquid inter phase and the "large" offsets the "slow". The result is that the typical time scale for excess CO2 absorption is more like 30-50 years. I admit that chemistry is not my expertise, but I've been told that the rate of CO2 absorption and dissipation was actually measured from radioactive isotopes produced in the nuclear explosion experiments in the 50-60s. The result is even a little quicker than what the theoretical models gives.

Physics is my expertise and the part I do know and understand much better is the effect of CO2 on the "greenhouse effect". Whether there is a global warming or not, whether it is man made or not, CO2 is not the direct and major cause of it. Correlations are tricky. The funniest example I know of is that if you check the life expectancy in various countries in the world, or any other health indicator for that matter, you will find a VERY tight correlation between good health and CO2 emission. Conclusion: CO2 is good for your health.

[MORAY37]

Muray, CO2 absorption in the oceans is a "slow" process, but what is "slow"? If you look at your own signature, you will notice that the ocean covers 2/3 of the earth - That is a "large" surface area.  The rate of absorption is proportional to the area of the gas-liquid inter phase and the "large" offsets the "slow". The result is that the typical time scale for excess CO2 absorption is more like 30-50 years. I admit that chemistry is not my expertise, but I've been told that the rate of CO2 absorption and dissipation was actually measured from radioactive isotopes produced in the nuclear explosion experiments in the 50-60s. The result is even a little quicker than what the theoretical models gives.

Physics is my expertise and the part I do know and understand much better is the effect of CO2 on the "greenhouse effect". Whether there is a global warming or not, whether it is man made or not, CO2 is not the direct and major cause of it. Correlations are tricky. The funniest example I know of is that if you check the life expectancy in various countries in the world, or any other health indicator for that matter, you will find a VERY tight correlation between good health and CO2 emission. Conclusion: CO2 is good for your health.

What?? CO2 isn't good for chordates health??? lol.  That correlation is funny to be sure.  Kind of like the study that came out in the mid eighties that said "You are 100 times more likely to die in a car accident within 15 miles of your home"  or something like that.  What they failed to mention is people spend 99% of their time within 15 miles of their residence, so, of course you're more likely to die within that distance.


I do agree with your point about CO2 not being a major contributor though.  What high levels of CO2 allow for though, is just enough warming to get methane clathrate (hydrates) released from permafrost and deep ocean reservoirs.  If CO2 was the major problem, we'd already be too late, since levels are higher than they have been in millenia.  Methane release starts once temperatures get past the freezing point in a given location, although it can remain stable up to 18 degrees C if the pressure is high enough (deep undersea).  CH4 is a much more efficient greenhouse gas, as I'm sure you know. 


[url]http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/01071/EGU2007-J-01071.pdf?PHPSESSID=e]http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html[url]
[url]http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/01071/EGU2007-J-01071.pdf?PHPSESSID=e
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html

[MORAY37]

What respect? You show zero respect to anyone who disagrees with you.

The impression anyone will get from your posts on climate discussion is that you're a self-aggrandizing windbag. There isn't the slightest doubt that you'll verify this with your reply....

You stated in your last post; "We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner."

My question is, who is "we" and what did you contribute to the study?


Widewing

Widewing, I respect those who respect me. Undoubtedly, you feel the same way.   


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMOS11C0385C
http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/359
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033205
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416070a.html

[Widewing]

Widewing, I respect those who respect me. Undoubtedly, you feel the same way.   


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMOS11C0385C
http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/1/359
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033205
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416070a.html

It doesn't work that way... You don't wait for respect to offer it. It's not a quid pro quo thing at all. Do you wait for someone to open a door for you before you do it for another?

You can certainly make your argument without "talking down" to folks, right?

Moving forward, you present several links above to studies on ocean pH levels. That's great, interesting reading. However, you haven't addressed my questions.

Re: You stated in your last post; "We've proven the pH of the ocean is decreasing in this manner."

My question is, who is "we" and what did you contribute to the study?

The term "We" (the first part of your "we've" contraction) connotes your participation.... What was your contribution?


My regards,

Widewing

[drdeathx]

Moray.... Never studied physics or chemistry. Your on your own.