CO2 begets more CO2

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > CO2 begets more CO2

CO2 begets more CO204-02-2019 22:24
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	As I understand the predominant theory, rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through the greenhouse effect increases the global average temperature. Although this increase is not alarming, the increase triggers feedback from the big greenhouse gas, H2O, causing alarming warming of the planet. Recently, I heard another theory whereby the temperature increase from CO2 releases more CO2 from, I assume, the oceans, causing alarming warming. Please let me know which theory I should be loosing sleep over.
04-02-2019 22:54
gfm7175 ★★☆☆☆ (164)	You should be losing sleep over none of those theories... First off, you should ask for a definition of "global warming" which is non-circular. I have not seen anybody offer up one as of yet... Secondly, what you will find is that many people claim to know A LOT more about measuring temperatures than they really know about it... They will claim that the temperature of Earth can be measured, which is currently not possible to measure... How many thermometers would you use? Where would you place them? Would they all be spaced evenly? At what time would you read them (would they all be read simultaneously)? etc. etc... and even then, there are still numerous conflicts with science and mathematics themselves...
04-02-2019 23:44
Into the Night ★★★★★ (8656)	Frescomexico wrote: As I understand the predominant theory, rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through the greenhouse effect increases the global average temperature. Although this increase is not alarming, the increase triggers feedback from the big greenhouse gas, H2O, causing alarming warming of the planet. Recently, I heard another theory whereby the temperature increase from CO2 releases more CO2 from, I assume, the oceans, causing alarming warming. Please let me know which theory I should be loosing sleep over. Neither, for neither are theories. The phrase 'global warming' is meaningless, just as 'increasing the global average temperature' is meaningless. These can only be defined by themselves. When has this warming taken place? What are the two measurements that describe the 'warming'? Why are those two points significant? Why are any other two points NOT significant? Also, neither CO2 nor H2O have the ability to warm the Earth from surface emitted IR. No gas or vapor has that capability. Get a good night's rest. The Parrot Killer
04-02-2019 23:58
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Frescomexico wrote: As I understand the predominant theory, rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through the greenhouse effect increases the global average temperature. Although this increase is not alarming, the increase triggers feedback from the big greenhouse gas, H2O, causing alarming warming of the planet. Recently, I heard another theory whereby the temperature increase from CO2 releases more CO2 from, I assume, the oceans, causing alarming warming. Please let me know which theory I should be loosing sleep over. If you're going to lose sleep over anything having to do with climate change/global warming, maybe the first part, the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuel combustion. It's the part that people are responsible for. The water vapor increase feedback "greenhouse" amplification is a result of increased temperature initiated by the increased CO2. The solubility of carbon dioxide (and other gasses) in water tends to decrease with increasing temperature, so a warming surface ocean would tend to outgas CO2. Cpnversely increased CO2 in the atmosphere would tend to dissolve more CO2 in the ocean. The surface ocean varies in temperature a lot and my understanding is that while warm surface waters do tend to lose CO2 to the atmosphere, colder ocean dissolves CO2, with, currently, a net uptake by the oceans. Then there are the seabed methane clathrates....
05-02-2019 00:12
Into the Night ★★★★★ (8656)	still learning wrote: Frescomexico wrote: As I understand the predominant theory, rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through the greenhouse effect increases the global average temperature. Although this increase is not alarming, the increase triggers feedback from the big greenhouse gas, H2O, causing alarming warming of the planet. Recently, I heard another theory whereby the temperature increase from CO2 releases more CO2 from, I assume, the oceans, causing alarming warming. Please let me know which theory I should be loosing sleep over. If you're going to lose sleep over anything having to do with climate change/global warming, There is no need to lose sleep over a meaningless buzzword. still learning wrote: maybe the first part, the increase in atmospheric CO2 It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. We don't have enough monitoring stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. still learning wrote: due to fossil fuel combustion. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. still learning wrote: It's the part that people are responsible for. Really? Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. still learning wrote: The water vapor increase feedback "greenhouse" amplification is a result of increased temperature initiated by the increased CO2. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth using emitted IR from the Earth's surface. No gas or vapor is capable. still learning wrote: The solubility of carbon dioxide (and other gasses) in water tends to decrease with increasing temperature, so a warming surface ocean would tend to outgas CO2. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans either. Why would they warm? We are the same general distance from the Sun, and the Sun's output has not changed much. still learning wrote: Cpnversely increased CO2 in the atmosphere would tend to dissolve more CO2 in the ocean. Generally true. still learning wrote: The surface ocean varies in temperature a lot and my understanding is that while warm surface waters do tend to lose CO2 to the atmosphere, colder ocean dissolves CO2, with, currently, a net uptake by the oceans. It is not possible to measure the global oceanic CO2 content. still learning wrote: Then there are the seabed methane clathrates.... What about 'em? The Parrot Killer

05-02-2019 20:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4026)	gfm7175 wrote: You should be losing sleep over none of those theories... First off, you should ask for a definition of "global warming" which is non-circular. I have not seen anybody offer up one as of yet... Secondly, what you will find is that many people claim to know A LOT more about measuring temperatures than they really know about it... They will claim that the temperature of Earth can be measured, which is currently not possible to measure... How many thermometers would you use? Where would you place them? Would they all be spaced evenly? At what time would you read them (would they all be read simultaneously)? etc. etc... and even then, there are still numerous conflicts with science and mathematics themselves... Please don't copy Nightmare with that ignorant definition. Weather leaves a record. We have those records almost from the founding of this country - saying that the average climate for this period is higher or lower to this period is not a "circular argument" it is nothing more than plain reporting.
05-02-2019 22:02
Into the Night ★★★★★ (8656)	Wake wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You should be losing sleep over none of those theories... First off, you should ask for a definition of "global warming" which is non-circular. I have not seen anybody offer up one as of yet... Secondly, what you will find is that many people claim to know A LOT more about measuring temperatures than they really know about it... They will claim that the temperature of Earth can be measured, which is currently not possible to measure... How many thermometers would you use? Where would you place them? Would they all be spaced evenly? At what time would you read them (would they all be read simultaneously)? etc. etc... and even then, there are still numerous conflicts with science and mathematics themselves... Please don't copy Nightmare with that ignorant definition. He didn't define anything, Wake. Wake wrote: Weather leaves a record. No, it doesn't have a pen. Weather comes, then moves on. Some snow or rain might be left behind for awhile, may a wind storm knocks down some trees, but that's about it. Wake wrote: We have those records almost from the founding of this country There never were any record of the temperature of the Earth, Wake. There still aren't. Wake wrote: - saying that the average climate for this period is higher or lower to this period is not a "circular argument" it is nothing more than plain reporting. Climate doesn't have a quantity, Wake. It can't be 'higher' or 'lower'. The Parrot Killer
05-02-2019 23:03
gfm7175 ★★☆☆☆ (164)	Wake wrote: Please don't copy Nightmare with that ignorant definition. I didn't define 'global warming', Wake... I'm asking YOU to define it in a non-circular manner... As far as I am concerned, it is a meaningless buzzword. Wake wrote: Weather leaves a record. No, it doesn't... Weather doesn't record anything. Wake wrote: We have those records almost from the founding of this country - Weather is incapable of record keeping... There are no records from weather. Wake wrote: saying that the average climate for this period is higher or lower to this period is not a "circular argument" it is nothing more than plain reporting. There is no such thing as a 'higher' or 'lower' climate... The temperature of the Earth cannot be measured... How would you go about measuring it?

Join the debate CO2 begets more CO2:

Threads	Replies	Last post
CO2 increase	100	19-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2	6	15-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO2	27	13-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water	4	09-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)	20	31-07-2019 23:12