Commentary #6: Global Warming

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

Going back to first principles on the theory that more co2 leads to warming

While on this subject, here's a little idle thought.

Let's talk ice cores and temperature records. From the first you can get a record of CO2 concentration in epochs past, and the second you can obtain via various methods. You put the two together, and you can see that they fall and raise as (geological) time goes by.
The important question is: do these records show that temperature follows CO2, or the other way round?

Without looking at the data (I know, sounds bizarre, but bear with me), let me speculate.
Before I start, let's remember one important, undisputed fact: oceans release CO2 as their temperature increases, and absorb it when their temperature decreases.

Let's assume that temperature follows CO2. Which means, an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature (that's the whole point of the Global Warming debate). An increase in temperature will in time heat up the oceans, which means they will release CO2. But this should cause a further increase in atmospheric CO2, which, according to our assumption, will cause a further increase in temperature. This is a positive feedback loop, that should lead to runaway temperature increase.
But this is not what the ice core / temperature records show.

It seems to me that this leaves only two options open.

- Temperature leads CO2.

- There is a mechanism, so far unspecified, that kicks in to break the positive feedback loop and leads to a decrease in both CO2 and temperature.


The first option needs no further discussion. The second is interesting, as it opens up further questions. Like:

- If there is such a mitigating mechanism, will it not kick in again, mitigating the supposed effects of CO2 of human origin?

Another maze of options. The phantom mechanism might indeed kick in, but only once the raise in temperature is very large, and thus too late for humanity's needs. Or maybe the mechanism worked only in the world where CO2 was only exchanged between oceans and atmosphere; now there is a third actor that is pumping extra CO2 in the atmosphere (let's assume the quantity is significant), and therefore the delicate mechanism won't work.

As you work down the options tree, it becomes more and more complex to build a consistent picture, especially because, as far as I know, we don't know much about this supposed feedback-breaking mechanism. Or if it exists at all.

And here, I think, might lie a hint. In the sense that, one of the options above (temperature leads CO2) explains data in a simpler, direct way. The other requires ad-hoc mechanisms of increased complexity to do the same.

Should we privilege the first, following Ockham's principle? Or should we be vary of "Everything should be as simple as possible. But not simpler" ? I honestly don't know.

IPB

[Mark Rippetoe]

Interesting, IPB. But here's the problem:

Let's assume that temperature follows CO2. Which means, an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature (that's the whole point of the Global Warming debate).

This has yet to be demonstrated conclusively, and never will be because it is not true. There have been global glaciation events that occurred in the Paleozoic when atmospheric CO2 was 5000-6000ppm. Just for fun, here's my take again:

Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth. Every August, everybody runs around like it's not supposed to be hot. Every time there's a drought, everybody acts like it's the very first time it's been dry too long. "Hurricane season" started in June, and how many hurricanes have devastated the coastlines already inundated by the molten ice caps? How many times over the past 20 years of this shit have the hurricane predictions been correct?

Really, the children are in charge now, seeking validation for "caring about the planet," running around yelling about "carbon" -- the 4th most abundant element in the physical universe --being a deadly poison. Their managers are common criminals whose entire agenda is money and control, and we are letting it happen. It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.

And in addition, the Government that brought you the flu from China, lockdowns, and vaccines that killed far more people than the flu, the Government in charge of "public education", the war(s) in Asia, the economy, and pronouns wants to also be in charge of the weather.

[Barry Charles]

Any forecasts on the hysteria pending with hurricane Hillary? They know pacific coast hurricanes reduce in energy as they travel north into cold water. Very unlikely a hurricane hits the land. Maybe calling it Hillary reflects dishonesty?

[Eric Schexnayder]

let's remember one important, undisputed fact: oceans release CO2 as their temperature increases, and absorb it when their temperature decreases.

This is grossly oversimplified. pH and alkalinity have a much bigger impact on the concentration of "CO2" in water. Note that most carbon dioxide that is actually "dissolved" in water is carbonic acid, which becomes calcium carbonate (i.e., coral / limestone) or other carbonate salts after being neutralized by alkaline species.

And far, far more important in determining the rate at which these transport phenomena occur is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the gaseous phase above the water, i.e. the atmosphere. This is Henry's Law, and it's why owning a pool fucking sucks.

So your runaway temperature scenario really doesn't make sense. There are far more phenomena taking place on our little Pale Blue Dot.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

This is grossly oversimplified....So your runaway temperature scenario really doesn't make sense.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

If I understand correctly, raising CO2 in the atmosphere would imply more CO2 absorbed by oceans, and vice versa; is this correct?

IPB

[mkm5]

Climate crisis update from up north; global warming is so bad here that I'm wearing my winter flannel coat (indoors) and getting the fireplace ready for tonight in the middle of fucking August.

[Leo M]

Any forecasts on the hysteria pending with hurricane Hillary?

People in other discussion groups I read are already panicking and advising everybody to prepare for another Noah's Flood.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

If I understand correctly, raising CO2 in the atmosphere would imply more CO2 absorbed by oceans, and vice versa; is this correct?

IPB

Directionally yes. But the other factor to consider is surface area (failed to mention that above).

It’s fairly easy to imagine how CO2-laden water might be

[Eric Schexnayder]

Touch screen is not my friend.

This article explains pretty clearly:
Ocean Alkalinity - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

[Satch12879]

Any forecasts on the hysteria pending with hurricane Hillary? They know pacific coast hurricanes reduce in energy as they travel north into cold water. Very unlikely a hurricane hits the land. Maybe calling it Hillary reflects dishonesty?

Calling it a “hurricane” instead of a “typhoon” like you’re supposed to in the Pacific Ocean is the hysteria.