Solubility of CO2 in Water vs. Greenhouse Effect?

[arkie87]

(Before I start, I just wanted to say that please be respectful in this forum; given the subject matter, I imagine it is quite easy to get frustrated and condescending and would like to request that those that do not feel they can be respectful kindly not enter the discussion; I am coming here with questions and want to learn).

So, if this source is correct, then not only does mainstream science accept the idea that in the past 400,000 years, temperature changes happened before CO2, it actually requires it due to the proposed positive feedback mechanism. This video also helps explain it:

If this is the case, then why is this graph repeatedly shown all the time as evidence of greenhouse effect? One could easily say, the reason they are correlated is due to solubility of CO2 in water.

I understand it is possible to argue that the initial changes in solar insolation are not sufficient to cause the large jumps in temperature, thereby, requiring a positive feedback mechanism (perhaps greenhouse effect); however, this is not directly shown by the graph (it is a separate argument which requires separate proof), and it seems intellectually dishonest to show this graph as evidence that CO2 and temperature are correlated due to greenhouse effect.

Am i missing something?

Edited August 4, 2015 by arkie87

[SargeRho]

CO2 heats up the atmosphere, heating up the ocean, releasing more CO2, heating up the atmosphere, thus further heating up the oceans which in turn release more CO2. The spikes in the graph were caused by changes in Earth's orbit, initiating the release of CO2.

[arkie87]

CO2 heats up the atmosphere, heating up the ocean, releasing more CO2, heating up the atmosphere, thus further heating up the oceans which in turn release more CO2. The spikes in the graph were caused by changes in Earth's orbit, initiating the release of CO2.

I have said this in the OP. I dont think this addresses my question?

[SargeRho]

A graph showing insolation in comparison to CO2, CH4 and Temperature is also available, for the past 400000 years, but it's not from the same place.

Edited August 4, 2015 by SargeRho

[arkie87]

A graph showing insolation in comparison to CO2, CH4 and Temperature is also available, for the past 400000 years, but it's not from the same place.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg

Ok, thanks

What am I to conclude from this graph? What are you trying to say?

[SargeRho]

The temperature spikes follow insolation, so if I understand it correctly, changes in insolation heat up the planet somewhat, triggering the release of CO2, which amplifies the increase in temperature disproportionately to the change in insolation. So, basically what I said in my first post. The CO2 does not directly heat up the planet, it just makes it retain more, hence the term greenhouse effect.

[KerikBalm]

Its a positive feedback loop.

Somewhat like a "chicken and egg" problem*

Chickens make eggs, and eggs make chickens.

Increased CO2 makes the planet warm.

When the planet warms, CO2 increases (due to lower solubility).

Luckily, there are also negative feedback loops that have stopped our planet from going the way of venus....

But in a feedback loop, cause and effect are liked. An effect is a cause for another cause that makes the first effect.

The data supports increased levels of CO2 causing increased global temperatures.

* not really a problem, as it is commonly phrased, for those with a bit of knoledge of paleontology.... Eggs were around a long long time before chickens...

[magnemoe]

CO2 heats up the atmosphere, heating up the ocean, releasing more CO2, heating up the atmosphere, thus further heating up the oceans which in turn release more CO2. The spikes in the graph were caused by changes in Earth's orbit, initiating the release of CO2.

Yet the ocean absorbs lots of the extra co2, major factor here is that just the surface layer of the sea is warmed up, this is easy to feel yourself if diving. An overall temperature increase will both increase the surface temperature and the temperature gradient down towards 4 degree but weather and seasons has far more impact on surface temperature who absorb co2.

Yes extra co2 stored in deep ocean will be released later then the water become warm surface water again but currently the ocean is absorbing co2 and will continue to do so as long as its an unbalance.

If we reduce atmospheric co2 levels down to pre-industial levels I guess the oceans would become an co2 supplier.

Some co2 in ocean end up in microorganisms who falls to the ocean floor and leaves the cycle other become carbonized.

[Thomassino]

In my opinion, phytoplankton is absorbing most of CO2. When levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise, so does its population (same is happening today), and thanks to photosynthesis, they will absorb CO2 creating oxygen and glucose (for their growth and reproduction). Eventually, they will become overpopulated and levels of CO2 will start to drop. Then, when there won't be enough CO2 in the atmosphere to sustain them all, they will start to die massively, and carry carbon in forms of organics to the ocean floor and shore. Eventually, their population will stabilize again.

[rtxoff]

Something what should be mentioned with oceans absorbing the CO2 is the acidification of them. Ocean acidification will have a serious impact on ocean life and it has already started, we are not able anymore to reverse the process, at this point we can just observe what is going to happen.

[arkie87]

The temperature spikes follow insolation, so if I understand it correctly, changes in insolation heat up the planet somewhat, triggering the release of CO2, which amplifies the increase in temperature disproportionately to the change in insolation. So, basically what I said in my first post. The CO2 does not directly heat up the planet, it just makes it retain more, hence the term greenhouse effect.

Sure, but how can you prove that from that graph? One could argue temperature is changing due to some unknown factor (or insolation + other unknown factors), or just that earth's temperature is a bit more complicated than we presently understand, and CO2 is just following temperature around due to solubility (and the fact that temperature raises first is good evidence that this occurs). I understand the mechanism, but i do not understand how anyone can say it is due to greenhouse and not just solubility (from that graph).

- - - Updated - - -

Its a positive feedback loop.

Somewhat like a "chicken and egg" problem*

Chickens make eggs, and eggs make chickens.

Increased CO2 makes the planet warm.

When the planet warms, CO2 increases (due to lower solubility).

Luckily, there are also negative feedback loops that have stopped our planet from going the way of venus....

But in a feedback loop, cause and effect are liked. An effect is a cause for another cause that makes the first effect.

The data supports increased levels of CO2 causing increased global temperatures.

* not really a problem, as it is commonly phrased, for those with a bit of knoledge of paleontology.... Eggs were around a long long time before chickens...

I understand the feedback mechanism. I do not understand how one can prove that is happening from that graph. Something else might be regulating temperature, and CO2 is just following temperature around.

[Hcube]

You guys are forgetting an important aspect of the positive loop mechanic : when temperature increases, a lot of ice and snow from the polar caps and more generally from cold areas on the planet melt, thus heavily lowering the albedo of the planet, wich then absorbs a lot more energy from the sun. this is actually a very very important factor. Maybe it's the answer to your problems? I have a graph somewhere with the albedo, temperatures, and diverse CO2 and oxygen isotopes from foraminifera, i'll try to find it later (don't count on it, my notes are a hot mess )

[magnemoe]

Something what should be mentioned with oceans absorbing the CO2 is the acidification of them. Ocean acidification will have a serious impact on ocean life and it has already started, we are not able anymore to reverse the process, at this point we can just observe what is going to happen.

Yes, this is an problem, however it should be pretty even globally, yes you have additional local effect on top, co2 released naturally then stuff breaks down in water and other and stronger acids from pollution like sulfuric acid.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but how can you prove that from that graph? One could argue temperature is changing due to some unknown factor (or insolation + other unknown factors), or just that earth's temperature is a bit more complicated than we presently understand, and CO2 is just following temperature around due to solubility (and the fact that temperature raises first is good evidence that this occurs). I understand the mechanism, but i do not understand how anyone can say it is due to greenhouse and not just solubility (from that graph).

Simply because the oceans absorb co2, majority of the extra co2 emitted ends up in the oceans according to an schematic in another tread.

Its easy to measure the co2 content in the atmosphere, you can also get good estimates of co2 emissions by calculate the amount of fossil fuel used.

Luckily most of the extra co2 get absorbed by oceans and some by plants. We also have decent estimates on co2 released from the ocean again, biological sources and volcanoes.

The oceans can absorb loads of more co2 plants also uses more then it has access to more many places.

This is pretty hard knowledge, with error margins who does not change the overall picture.

The real question is the relation between temperature and CO2 level. yes its an effect, however we also have other effects.

One weird effect on the 400.000 year graph was the stable temperature 120.000 years ago while co2 and ch4 level was falling hard.

Yes this can be measurement errors too but interesting.

[GeneralVeers]

Am i missing something?

Not at all. You spotted something.

Before I start, keep in mind that the source you provided in the original post is heavily biased, and therefore not reliable. It's a web site that's dedicated entirely to squashing global warming skepticism, and the site only appears to collect data that supports that goal. That's not how one is supposed to do science.

That said: the first problem here is that the graph showing temperature changes lagging behind CO2 changes is an approximation. We're making educated guesses at what Earth's temperatures and CO2 concentrations were in the past, via indirect methods (frequently ice cores). It's entirely possible our measurements are off.

The second problem is: people are just plain stubborn. Point out a problem with a chart, as you did in the OP, and a large number of people will refuse to listen to you, walk away in a huff, and go right on posting that chart in other threads on other web sites. Happens all the time, and not only in global warming arguments.

The third problem is much more insidious. You already snagged a piece of it when you called attention to the possibility that temperature affects CO2 levels, rather than the other way around. The argument of "does CO2 affect temperature, or does temperature affect CO2?" is old hat in global warming arguments. But there are always at least THREE possibilities, and the third possibility has been almost entirely drowned in the vitriol people have been spewing at each other in arguments over climate science for the last forty-odd years. Here's that third possibility: temperature and CO2 could both be caused by something else entirely. The chart does show a correlation--but that correlation doesn't tell you what the cause is. We humans have an automatic tendency to assume it's one or the other--but what if the cause isn't on the chart?

Oh, and it gets better--the fourth possibility is that the chart is simply a flat-out lie. I've seen more than one global warming alarmist say the following in online chat forums: "so what if global warming isn't real? If people think it's real, they'll work harder to clean up the planet!" Gives a whole new meaning to the old snippet about how "the truth hurts".......

So there ya have it, Arkey. Four possible explanations of what's wrong with the things. Sorry I don't have a clear and simple answer for you, but as you said in the OP, this topic is a nasty one. Gets peoples' feathers ruffled. Good fortune in your pursuit of the truth.

Alrightey, folks, time for some fun!

Luckily, there are also negative feedback loops that have stopped our planet from going the way of venus

I've got a big surprise in store for you, dude. Hang onto your potatoes!

Venus isn't what you think it is. It's not a planet-size warning to Earth about what will happen if we don't all turn into Al Gores. The barbecue-grill temperatures on our sister planet are almost entirely NOT the result of carbon dioxide!

All forms of radiation, including heat, follow the inverse-square law: double the distance from a radiation source, and the radiation received does not get reduced to half--it gets reduced to one-fourth! Radiation received depends on exposed surface area. Hold a playing card in front of your face at varying distances, and you can see it yourself: at twice the distance, the card is half as wide and half as tall--which is one-fourth the surface area. Cut the distance from a radiation source in half, and you get FOUR TIMES as much radiation. This remains true even for radiation that goes right through you (such as gamma radiation). It may seem that your entire body is still being exposed to gamma radiation, but if you double the distance from the source, you now only have one-fourth as many gamma rays going through your body (taking that playing card and sticking pins in it would be a good analogy--at twice the distance, the card gets one-fourth as many pins).

Venus is thirty percent closer to the sun than Earth is. That doesn't mean Venus gets thirty percent more heat from the Sun.....it means Venus gets twice as much. And guess what? Venus is twice as hot as Earth. The high temperatures on Venus are almost entirely the result of Venus being closer to the Sun, and its thick carbon dioxide atmosphere has very little to do with it.

Oh, there's more! Here's some more fun for the science wonks in here. It turns out that Venus' night side is just as hot as the day side! It's been verified via satellites landing on the planet. This is particularly impressive when you remember that a Venus day is longer than a Venus year. That's what carbon dioxide actually does. It buffers and slows temperature changes.

SCIENCE!

[KerikBalm]

Venus is thirty percent closer to the sun than Earth is. That doesn't mean Venus gets thirty percent more heat from the Sun.....it means Venus gets twice as much. And guess what? Venus is twice as hot as Earth. The high temperatures on Venus are almost entirely the result of Venus being closer to the Sun, and its thick carbon dioxide atmosphere has very little to do with it.

Utter BS....

Using that logic, Mercury should be over 2.5x as hot as venus... its not even close...

Because temperature doesn't work like that... and your simplistic and mechanistically wrong arguments show you for what you are.

[SargeRho]

Venus does receive twice the amount of Sunlight. However, its high albedo means it absorbs less than Earth. About 10% of the sunlight actually reaches the surface, so it receives about 1/5th as much sunlight on the surface as Earth. It's also hotter than the daytime side of Mercury.

The daytime side of Mercury is about 165°C, Venus is 430°C.

[GeneralVeers]

Utter BS....

Using that logic, Mercury should be over 2.5x as hot as venus... its not even close...

Wrong. The inverse-square law of radiation absorption is known fact. Don't take my word for it--look it up. And the surface temperatures on Venus are also known fact, because human beings put satellites on the planet's surface and measured it.

So obviously Mercury must be an anomaly in some way. Probably because it's surface is largely metallic and therefore conducts heat away from the surface much faster.

And also, change your tone. Getting snipey is not going to convince anybody. Rather the opposite. It makes people automatically want to disagree with you. Right now SargeRho is getting better results from me than you are.

Venus does receive twice the amount of Sunlight. However, its high albedo means it absorbs less than Earth.

In visible light, to be sure. In the infrared range? Not so sure. I've seen a lot of sites describing the surface of Venus being photographed in infrared, which suggests its atmosphere is at least partially transparent to infrared.

Edited August 4, 2015 by WedgeAntilles

[CalculusWarrior]

I believe the reason for Venus' atmosphere and extreme conditions is due to its closeness to the sun, but not primarily due to the amount of radiation it receives. In the very early days of the solar system it was much like Earth now, but as the Sun warmed up to its current temperature and brightness, this triggered a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in the hellhole we all know and love today.

[SargeRho]

No, Mercury isn't an anomaly. It's exactly as hot as it should be. Venus is hotter than it should be based on insolation alone. Actually, Venus is too cold according to this planetary surface temperature calculator I'm using. I'm guessing it doesn't take the complexity of the atmosphere into account.

Edited August 4, 2015 by SargeRho

[Kryten]

I believe the reason for Venus' atmosphere and extreme conditions is due to its closeness to the sun, but not primarily due to the amount of radiation it receives. In the very early days of the solar system it was much like Earth now, but as the Sun warmed up to its current temperature and brightness, this triggered a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in the hellhole we all know and love today.

You're talking to somebody that appears not to believe in the greenhouse effect, at all. You're going to have to use much smaller words.

[GeneralVeers]

No, Mercury isn't an anomaly. It's exactly as hot as it should be.

Actually, in terms of received radiation, Mercury is colder than it "should" be.

The daytime side of the Moon tops out at the boiling point of water. Mercury? About twice that. Except Mercury gets FIVE TIMES as much incident radiation as the Moon. Probably due to different compositions.

[SargeRho]

If the moon was where Mercury is, it would be about the same temperature as Mercury. If you had an object with an albedo as high as Venus where Mercury is, but no atmosphere, it'd be 29°C. With Venus' atmosphere, it'd be over 650°C.

Surface temperature does not scale directly with insolation. Twice the sunlight doesn't mean twice the surface temperature. The only way to explain Venus' extreme temperature is if the atmosphere is retaining a large portion of the heat it receives. CO2 has been demonstrated to have such an effect.

Edited August 4, 2015 by SargeRho

[Vanamonde]

Watch the tempers, please. No need to treat fellow forum members as enemies.

[KerikBalm]

Wrong. The inverse-square law of radiation absorption is known fact. Don't take my word for it--look it up.

Don't straw-man me, I wasn't questioning the inverse-square law.

So obviously Mercury must be an anomaly in some way. Probably because it's surface is largely metallic and therefore conducts heat away from the surface much faster.

The center cannot radiate heat, and started hotter than the outside, and cannot function as a heat-sink.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Vanamonde

[Kerbart]

Venus is thirty percent closer to the sun than Earth is. That doesn't mean Venus gets thirty percent more heat from the Sun.....it means Venus gets twice as much. And guess what? Venus is twice as hot as Earth. The high temperatures on Venus are almost entirely the result of Venus being closer to the Sun, and its thick carbon dioxide atmosphere has very little to do with it.

The problem with that reasoning is that you assume that the inflow of energy is the only factor in what determines the surface temperature and it's not. The (constant) temperature is a result of an equilibrium between energy received at the surface, and energy released. When your planet "loses" more energy than it receives, it cools off. When it loses less energy it heats up.

Don't think the reception part is easy because it's not just thermal energy received from the sun. The inside of the planet may be hot and that might radiate (and convect) outward. A solid core might mean tectonic movement with heat resistance. And not all radiation hitting the planet is converted to heat; some of it simply bounces of ("reflection") and doesn't get the chance to add heat.

Conversely, how much heat the planet loses is also not simple. A lot of that depends on if there's an atmosphere or not, and how good that atmosphere can retain thermal energy.

That's what carbon dioxide actually does. It buffers and slows temperature changes.

Yes... and that's exactly the problem. We're introducing more of this heat retaining gas into the atmosphere. While thermal energy IN doesn't change, we're lowering thermal energy OUT. And that... means temperature will rise.