[Zer0 (OP)]

Shhushh!
🤫
Whatever happens inside Mod Room, stays inside Mod Room.

Thanks You All for All your responses.

I kinda get it now.
CO2 increase affects certain species in a negative way.
Also with the incredible rate of increase, most species might not be able to adapt or respond so quickly.

Ps - I feel Humanity will lose this battle.
A consensus of 80% scientists, or 90% or even 97% is No Match infront of 100% hypocritically manipulative politicians.
(Might is always Right)

[Spring Theory]

Climate change aside, there is another *major* problem with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. It is literally and figuratively changing the bedrock of our marine ecosystems!

As it dissolves in ocean water, it causes a shift in this equilibrium:

CO2(aq) + H2O(aq) + CaCO3(s)  Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3–(aq)

While this looks innocuous enough, here is the catch: CaCO3(s) is the primary component of sea shells, and coral reefs. More CO2 released into the environment means that animals at the bottom of the food chain have weaker shells, and less healthy coral reefs, which then translates to major disruptions to the ecosystems that depend on the reefs.

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

As with climate change, the problem isn't necessarily how much CO2 there is at any given time (over the course of geological history, it has been much higher and much lower than it is today). The problem is how quickly things are changing. Sea creatures need time to evolve shells with slightly different compositions, or attain new behaviors to adapt to their new reality. Ecosystems need time to adjust to new status quo. And it is a good time to remind everybody that many of these systems are susceptible to positive feedback loops: small but sudden disruptions in an ecosystem can lead to odd boom-bust cycles that then really mess everything up.

(imagine that the oysters' shells become weaker, making it initially easier for otters to eat them. The population of otters will grow quickly while the oyster population shrinks. At a certain point, the oyster population cannot sustain itself, and crashes. Then the otter population crashes. If this were a "normal" predator-prey equilibrium, a brief disturbance would cause some oscillation in populations for a while before settling back down on the original equilibrium. But if the "balance point" is continuously changing because the environment is changing during the oscillation, then both species could go extinct in a matter of decades!)

But if the oceans are warming, they would have less dissolved CO2. 

[Bored chemist]

But if the oceans are warming, they would have less dissolved CO2. 

The CO2 is currently rising much faster than ocean temperature.

[Spring Theory]

But if the oceans are warming, they would have less dissolved CO2.

The CO2 is currently rising much faster than ocean temperature.

That's up for debate:

The mathematical models predict a gradual increase as atmospheric levels rise but weather station measurements of CO2 water levels suggested year-to-year variability, but no long-term increase over time. The top level of the ocean is completely saturated. Variables in levels are usually due to wind patterns but change on multi year scale cycles. This wind can cause mixing with the lower layers of the ocean.

Even if the ocean temperatures averaged 60F, the maximum level of CO2 saturation would be 0.2% or 2000 ppm. You would need allot of hydrogen ions to convert all that per your formula to make a significant increase in acidity. 

Also a side effect of acidity is it reduces the electrical conductivity of water. This would inhibit electron transfer as well in a sort of self regulating process.

[Bored chemist]

That's up for debate:

The CO2 level has gone up by a third.
The temperature has not.
So it will be a rather short debate.

You would need allot of hydrogen ions

There is an ocean full of hydrogen; about 1/9 of the mass of the water.

[alancalverd]

More CO2 leads to more "wild weather"

It's just physics.

Not observed so far. There's a big difference between headlines and observations, and general warming should reduce the incidence of extreme weather events which depend on local temperature differences.

[Bored chemist]

Not observed so far.

https://www.pbs.org/show/global-weirding/

[alancalverd]

Cherrypicking makes good TV, but you need to disentangle the effects of increasing observations (particularly over the oceans), increasing frequency of observations, and increasing human impact due to the increasing fragility and density of human habitation. Nobody had a broadcast quality video of a forest fire 150 years ago!

The incidence of very large hailstones in the UK, for instance, has decreased in the last 50 years. The number of reported Atlantic storms has increased with  satellite monitoring, but the number making landfall (where reporting has been fairly consistent for a long time) has not. But the damage done by hurricanes has increased enormously as the swamps have been drained and built on.

The Thames probably didn't freeze in Roman times but it did in the 17th and 18th centuries. Which phenomenon counts as "weird" - freezing or not freezing?

[Bored chemist]

The incidence of very large hailstones in the UK, for instance, has decreased in the last 50 years.

By your own logic concerning reporting, you don't know if that's true or not.

[alancalverd]

It's a particular interest of mine, and well reported through the Met Office aviation service (very keen on forecasting hail at all levels) and Rare Phenomena department.

It was a happy coincidence that the International Geophysical Year (1957-58) included a national hailstone survey in the UK and it turned out to be a very prolific year for hailstones. As an enthusiastic meteorological observer at the time, it really piqued my interest.

Years later I played in a band whose trombonist worked in Rare Phenomena and wanted to film cloud structures from a glider. We had some aerial adventures with hailstones.

Beware of geeks bearing facts!

[Spring Theory]

That's up for debate:

The CO2 level has gone up by a third.
The temperature has not.
So it will be a rather short debate.

You would need allot of hydrogen ions

There is an ocean full of hydrogen; about 1/9 of the mass of the water.

I think you meant that the oceans have absorbed 1/3 of the extra CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. That is not equal to levels increasing by 1/3.  Levels do increase but them back down again.

The Vostok Ice Core report shows that carbon dioxide levels follow the planet temperature not drive it. The sun is the driver of planet temperature.  The hotter the earth gets, the more CO2 is released from the ocean.

[Spring Theory]

Since Venus is often used as the poster child of a runaway greenhouse gas effect, it would be useful to model it compared to the earth.

Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide.  Its surface temperature is about 900 F but that is at 90 times the pressure of the earth. This high temperature is mainly credited to a runaway greenhouse effect but you have to take into account heat of compression.  Just like a heat pump that compresses Freon, the pressurization heats it by so it is hotter than the outside temperature.  Then you can remove some heat and let it decompress to a colder temperature than before and you can stay cool in the summer.

If you look at Venus's temperature at 1 atmosphere of pressure, it is 167 F.  If we reduce the temperature of the sun effects by 10F (because Venus is closer to the sun), then the equivalent earth temperature would be 157 F once it's carbon dioxide level reaches 96.5%. Current earth CO2 level are about 0.04%.

Earth's average temperature is about 59 F. Converted to Kelvin is 289 K. Converting 157 F to Kelvin is 343 K.

If we calculate the difference ratio on the same temperature scale to the percentage then:



This converts to 1.8 F increase for every 1% increase in CO2 levels. This means if we doubled current CO2 levels the average temperature should increase by 0.072 F.

So in answering the original post question, rising CO2 levels moderately increase earth's temperature, but is not a significant problem. 

[alancalverd]

Beware, ST, other moderators do not tolerate rational dissent on this subject.

I've always looked at Mars for a comparator - more earthlike with more CO2 but much cooler than you would find if CO2 were as significant a greenhouse gas as some would like you to believe.

Not sure you can ascribe Vostok data to the sun. Does it really undergo sudden huge increases in output followed by slow decreases over 100,000 years? It looks vaguely plausible but surely someone would have noticed the continuing and steepening change over the last 100 years. The evidence seems to be that it hasn't changed much since 1970.

[Bored chemist]

I think you meant that the oceans have absorbed 1/3 of the extra CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. That is not equal to levels increasing by 1/3.  Levels do increase but them back down again.

No.
I meant what I actually said.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 300 ppm; they are now about 400 ppm.
That's an increase of about 1/3.

The sun is the driver of planet temperature.

And yet, while it stays pretty much constant, the temperature rises and falls.

Beware, ST, other moderators do not tolerate rational dissent on this subject.

Misrepresenting what I said, as ST just did, is not "rational dissent", is it?

Just like a heat pump that compresses Freon, the pressurization heats it by so it is hotter than the outside

And, just like a heat pump, when you turn off the compressor, it cools down again.
The pressure on Venus has been constant for many thousands of years, so any heat aggerated by compressing the atmosphere (whatever you think might have done that... will have dissipated long ago.

This converts to 1.8 F increase for every 1% increase in CO2 levels.

Nobody with any understanding of physics would think the effect is linear over the range you are talking about.
Did you think we would?

[Spring Theory]

Beware, ST, other moderators do not tolerate rational dissent on this subject.

I've always looked at Mars for a comparator - more earthlike with more CO2 but much cooler than you would find if CO2 were as significant a greenhouse gas as some would like you to believe.

Not sure you can ascribe Vostok data to the sun. Does it really undergo sudden huge increases in output followed by slow decreases over 100,000 years? It looks vaguely plausible but surely someone would have noticed the continuing and steepening change over the last 100 years. The evidence seems to be that it hasn't changed much since 1970.

Warning noted.  Vostok data I think is related to the procession of the earth. Of course this is based on time scales of centuries.  The average levels of CO2 over the course of the earth's lifetime is 2000 ppm. This is a cycle that deserves objective study and more funding.  My concern is what if we remove all the CO2 emissions, get the levels down and the temperature still increases?

Of course everyone has opinions but I would rather see offers of alternative models rather than a moderator make personal snips about knowledge of physics.  That's a sign of desperation and not worth a response.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be ignoring me and pretending that it's because I'm a mod.
Well... I'm not a moderator.

That's a sign of desperation

Perhaps you should try responding to the points I made, rather than misrepresenting them.

[alancalverd]

Vostok data I think is related to the procession of the earth. Of course this is based on time scales of centuries.

The temperature rises occurred steeply, over a period of  2 - 10,000 years, and the falls were asymptotic over 100,000 years. Precession is sinusoidal, not sawtooth. The current rise began about 15 - 20,000 years ago and is actually less steep than some of the previous ones.

One of the things I find interesting is that the range of both temperature and CO2 has been pretty constant over 500,000 years, and the cycle seems to be slowing - though that's based on a rather small sample of 4 previous peaks.

But it's good to meet someone more interested in the data than the models!

[Bored chemist]

The current rise began about 15 - 20,000 years ago and is actually less steep than some of the previous ones.

As I already pointed out to you, the current rise is about 100 times faster than the previous ones.
That makes this

But it's good to meet someone more interested in the data than the models!

rather ironic, doesn't it.

[jammer5]

Of course it's a major problem. It traps heat, which raises the temperature of pretty much everything. A PBS NOVA special called, Decoding the Weather Machine, went into fine detail as to the science behind it. It is a fascinating 2 hour documentary. I've watched it three or four times and learn something new every time. Look it up on PBS - you won't be disappointed.

[Petrochemicals]

Vostok data I think is related to the procession of the earth. Of course this is based on time scales of centuries.

The temperature rises occurred steeply, over a period of  2 - 10,000 years, and the falls were asymptotic over 100,000 years. Precession is sinusoidal, not sawtooth. The current rise began about 15 - 20,000 years ago and is actually less steep than some of the previous ones.

One of the things I find interesting is that the range of both temperature and CO2 has been pretty constant over 500,000 years, and the cycle seems to be slowing - though that's based on a rather small sample of 4 previous peaks.

But it's good to meet someone more interested in the data than the models!

But more carbon in the eco system would not just dissappear, remember we are unlocking the CO2 from the carboniferous, when oxygen levels where far higher. Perhaps one function of CO2 emission will be far increaced plant growth thus higher water vapour. What are your thoughs on this graph

f7-large.jpg (133.95 kB . 1280x680 - viewed 748 times)