Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

I agree with EBS on this last. On the other hand their has been NO ocean warming so again...moot point.

[erps]

But according to some articles I've read, there has been a change in the ocean's acidity that is being blamed on CO2. That doesn't appear to be the "sky is falling" issue of the day though, so it may not be much of an issue.

Maybe if the warming trend stops, that will be the next one?

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by Yamsailor

Folks,

I have been traveling overseas. The microscope is at the National Enforcement Investigation Center in Fort Collins Colorado.

OK, the EPA has a facility in Colorado where they apparently investigate pollution cases. That much I've verified. Now let's here about this microscope that can distinguish CO2 from forest fires from my campfire.

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by ebs001

This is not true for gases. Heat water in a pot and before it boils what do you see? Bubbles on the surfaces of the pot. Air is being desolved out.

I'm not convinced that these pre-vigorous-boiling bubbles are made of air and not water vapor, formed from vaporization of water at the pot-water interface.

Furthermore, according to Henry's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the solubility of a gas in a solvent is given by a function which happens to be monotonically increasing with temperature.

[erps]

Now let's here about this microscope that can distinguish CO2 from forest fires from my campfire.

That's easy. The campfire CO2 will have little pieces of marshmellow on it.

[ebs001]

Adam here's a quote from the website you posted; "Because solubility of gases is decreasing with increasing temperature"

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by ebs001

Adam here's a quote from the website you posted; "Because solubility of gases is decreasing with increasing temperature"

Aha, I stand corrected... was a bit confused about the role of "k"... n/m.

[sailaway21]

First off, I have to wonder why I'm reading about this in the UK before I am in the US. OK, I'm a conspiracy theory whack job who thinks the media have lot all objectivity.
My next reaction is that these coconuts didn't waste any time hardly at all drawing the conclusion that we've a new hot spot in Russia.
Lastly, I'm wondering if we're drawing on the same labor pool at NASA that we are at Treasury because we're getting similar results.

Here's the latest, "Oops!" from "your" National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Try not to think of the federal budget deficit when you read this.
The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

[Rockter]

I understand that the wee bubbles that appear when you heat water are oxygen coming out of solution. Oxygen solubility in water is best at very cold temperature, close to freezing.

This source shows that CO2 has a similar trend....

Carbon Dioxide Solubility in Water

.... that CO2 solubility in water falls with elevated temnperature.

So, if you just heat the ocean, the CO2 count in the water will fall. This one shows that at 20 degC, the CO2 solubility is about 1/3 less than at 10 degC.

It would seem that a warming ocean may be more than a bit reluctant to absorb that CO2 they keep talking about. Perhaps it's different in salt water, but this summary shows a similar trend to fresh-water...

Science Links Japan | Study of Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Seawater

Now this bit is good. For both freswater and salt water, elevate the temperature and your CO2 will leave the water to the atmosphere, dropping the acidity of the water.

For fresh water, unless in the same heating time period, the CO2 count goes up by 1/3, fresh water will become less acidic.

It looks very much like a heating ocean will yield CO2, and not absorb it.

I will try to find a similar graph for salt water, but I have not, as yet.

If the temperature does not rise though, the acidity will go up, yes, but the global warmists better hope the water temperature does not rise, and such hope does not come easy to them, does it?

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by AdamLein

Cam, the jury is still out for me as to whether warming is occurring. As you are pointing out, I've seen a variety of evidence pointing both directions. My personal, anecdotal experience says that it is indeed increasing, but even if that's true, I recognize that there are huge swings in the annual mean temperature.

What I'd be interested in seeing is just how huge those swings are, relative to the overall increase over the past hundred years. If there's a two-degree swing every couple of years, then a two-degree increase over a hundred years is not interesting either. In statistical terms, given the assumption that there is no warming going on, what's the probability of observing temperatures as extreme as we're seeing? My guess is: pretty high.

Does anybody have a link to numerical temperature data over the past hundred years or so?

Adam...the ONLY 100year temp data is from NASA/GISS since the satellites were not flying till the 70's. The problem with the NASA/GISS data is that it is QUITE unreliable even today. Back in the early 1900's and before, there was no real accuracy of the sort needed today and you have to remember that the temps recorded were designed for local weather reporting...not accuracy. Furthermore, without an understanding of the macro events surrounding a year or years, it is impossible to evaluate the temperatures. For Example...an El Nino or La Nina event or a volcano eruption can cause great swings in temps for a couple of years. Also the growth of cities and parking lots and highways etc. causes significantly higher temps in some spots when compared to the same areas 50 or 100 years ago...the is the "heat island" effect.
So...when you see the temperature graphs like I posted, the RAW data is rather meaningless and it has been massaged to wring out the anomalies and then the 5 year smoothing is applied to take out the peaks and valleys and provide a better overall picture of temps.
Having said that...the BIGGEST problem with the GISS data is that the PRESENT temp monitoring sites are hugely inaccurate with only 13% of the stations accurate to within ONE degree according to their own standards!

Only the blue and green sectors of this pie chart are within one degree accuracy. The large organge swath is greater than two degrees and the 13% RED...is 5 degrees or more!! So we are trying to measure temperatures to an accuracy of a 1/10th of a degree or so...and using equipment siting that is orders of magnitude more innaccurate.
This is why I say...only trust the satellite and ocean temp measurements...and even then...check who is messing with the data and how.
Anyway...I think you have a perfectly reasonable stance to say.."I don't know who to believe" at this point in time. I personally think that there is probably some slight warming that has gone on due to 95% natural causes AND that we are in for a number of years of cooling coming up due to solar issues. In either event...it is not a crisis for mankind and we have a lot better things to do with our money than fix imagined crises.