Can we talk about global warming for a second? So I'm no

shameless self-bump

>>8913265
>When you raise the temperature of a liquid, the ability of said liquid to retain solid gases decreases. This contradicts the notion that the rise in CO2 affects the temperature, when temperature increase actually is what causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere
What? You haven't shown how that's a contradiction at all.
Also, the ocean is currently a net CO2 sink despite the rising water temperature, which really underscores how far we are from CO2 equilibrium right now.

>HL states that the concentration of a gas dissolved in a solvent will be proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the solvent. This means that they will constantly be in equilibrium.
So what? I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

>My question to you then /sci/ is what exactly IS going on?
Have you tried reading ANYTHING other than denier copy-paste and Al Gore quotes?

>But I don't think CO2 is the issue,
Then you're wrong.
We can measure the Earth's outgoing radiation directly, and determine the strength and components of the greenhouse effect from that. There is no doubt that the current rise in temperatures is caused by sky-rocketing CO2 levels. We can also determine the source of that atmospheric CO2 by isotope analysis, and can show it's originating from fossil sources.

>>8913265
Here's one piece of evidence that proves you wrong: relative abundance of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. The carbon in hydrocarbons we burn is diffferent to the carbon that was already in the environment. We can measure the relative abundance of different carbon isotopes over time and see that we're definitely the one's releasing CO2 which we know is a greenhouse gas.

>>8913265
Rate of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere is another aspect you might want to look at. Its very very high.

>>8913303
this is directly from my chemistry textbook. like i said i'm not denying i just think the CO2 dialogue is a little off

>>8913265
Why would ocean acification be happening unless more carbon was being introduced into the environment somehow, given Henry's Law?

>>8913326
acidification*

>>8913303

The contradiction is in the idea that CO2 causes the rise in temperature, and simply looking at a graph might reaffirm that notion. but dissolved gases are retained less at higher temperatures, which means that the temperature increase actually happens first, and then the rise in CO2 is then seen because of this. Not the converse, which is generally what people believe to be true

>>8913320
>this is directly from my chemistry textbook.
Right. But you're claiming that it somehow contradicts AGW, and I don't see why.

>i just think the CO2 dialogue is a little off
But why?

>>8913315
so the issue is mostly related to HFCs and CFCs then, not so much "Carbon Dioxide"

>>8913341
The oceans cant possibly be the cause of rising CO2 levels - they're abosbing significantly more CO2 than they're emitting.

>>8913353
>so the issue is mostly related to HFCs and CFCs then, not so much "Carbon Dioxide"
Nope. We know what the relative forcing strength of different gasses are. HFCs and CFCs don't even come close to the contribution from CO2.

>>8913350
no because the use of HFCs (or was is CFCs) was discontinued but the carbon trend remains
also we don't use enough of those to make this kind of impact
they're only used for what? AC units? refrigerators? and they last for years in the machine rather than escape into the atmosphere right away

>>8913362
what does this have to do with rote memorization? I'm just trying to unpack it all as i currently understand it with the laws and equations that I know to this point, and to fully understand means challenging the status quo, even if it's in a "devil's advocate" sense

The graphic is funny in a silly way. Everything up until the modern era correlates near perfect and the argument somehow arises that the two are not related. So for 650,000 years carbon was doing carbon things but within the past 400 years, carbon somehow stopped trapping heat.

>>8913566
that chart was discovered to have bumped temperature increases by about 800 years though too, to make that correlation look more convincing. So i never said they "weren't related" like you suggest. I simply said that the causal relationship seems flipped, based upon what I know about how gases behave when dissolved in liquids, as well as how a dynamic equilibrium will behave

File: CC_global carbon cycle.png (7KB, 400x222px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 400x222px

>>8913303
>ocean is currently a net CO2 sink

>>8913265
I'm an ice core scientist studying paleoclimate OP, and let me answer some of your questions legitimately

>Dissolved Gases. When you raise the temperature of a liquid, the ability of said liquid to retain solid gases decreases.
This is absolutely correct, yes

>This contradicts the notion that the rise in CO2 affects the temperature, when temperature increase actually is what causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (by way of dissolved CO2 in our oceans b/c of plant life)
Not sure what you meant, are you suggesting that increase in temperature causes increase in atmospheric CO2? This is not true, and you kind of answered your own question below with Henry's law.

>2) Henry's Law. The assumption posed from my first bullet then leads to the question "well then that increased CO2 then causes the greenhouse effect"...well, not necessarily. B/c HL states that the concentration of a gas dissolved in a solvent will be proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the solvent. This means that they will constantly be in equilibrium.
Yeah the atmosphere and the ocean are almost always in equilibrium following Henry's law. You are correct that everything we dumped into the atmosphere will eventually ends up in the equilibrium with the ocean. This is why the ocean is currently acidifying, because the atmosphere is oversaturated with pCO2 compared to the ocean, and hence the ocean is a net sink of CO2 despite the fact that the ocean is warming.

Seems like you're a bit confused on Henry's law, or are you confused about the lead/lag relationship between CO2 and temperature?

>>8915733
>>8913265
Just to add things about the lead/lag relationship in CO2. With ice core records we know what Antarctic T leads CO2 then CO2 leads global temperature in the past 800ky.

Here's the paper for it.
https://epic.awi.de/32547/1/parrenin2013s_accepted_all.pdf

and here's the layman article
https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/evidence-rethink-puts-co2-and-ancient-warming-back-in-sync/

Back in the ice age cycles temperature did lead CO2 changes, but by very little amount of time <150yr. It kind of irks me a bit that my colleagues keep calling it "synchronous," just admit the lag and explain it properly.

Does this mean that global warming is not real? Of course not. Despite leading CO2 by <150yr, 99.9% of CO2 and T record rise and fall concurrently. Without CO2 driving global climate, changes in insolation due to orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycle) alone is not strong enough by pure wattage per square feet to drive the massive changes in T.

Comparing ice age cycles and current AGW is comparing apples to oranges. One is completely natural, driven by orbital changes and the other is driven by excess GHG in the atmosphere. When a climate change is driven by orbital change, it makes sense that Antarctic T would change first, then this change drives the positive feedback with CO2 which then drive global T.

See this paper for comparison
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
so it goes like
Antarctic T drives CO2, which is a well mixed gas and CO2 drives global T through greenhouse effect.

This processes has nothing to do with AGW. This time around we drive the CO2 up artificially, which every fundamental physics suggest it would increase the infrared reflectance of the atmosphere and hence drive T up.

People who insisted that T change in the past drive CO2 changes are correct, but if one concludes that this means AGW is false then said conclusion is incorrect

>>8915765
Can't someone just make a wiki/sticky for /climatechange/ general already?

I've seen this explanation for the T vs. CO2 lead lag relationship from the ice core anon like in every other thread but the deniers just never ends