QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jun 1 2009, 04:33 AM)
There are 1,3 bilion cubic kilometers of water in the oceans. Just the 10m upper layer of it comprises of 3 613 000 000 000 000 m3 of water (a 1/~3500 of the oceans volume) and its mean surface temperature is ~17°C. IPCC claimed, this surface temperature rised >0,8°C in last 100 years since 1910.
Some influential and by political lobbies well paid "climatologists" insist the DECISIVE cause is human CO2 emissions and that it is what causes a significant rise of the so called GHE - and thus temperature of the Earth's surface including ocean to rise.
Tume. If you do more research you will find that the boot is very much on the other foot. I would suggest that you look into the activities of the Heartland and Cato Institutes and note that the later recently commissioned a full page advertisement with a list of names of 'scientists' who were challenging Obama. Then search for many of those names on Google, or whatever. You will surely discover where these have penned outrageous 'Opinion Pieces' which have subsequently been torn to shreds by those scientists qualified to comment.
Be aware of the names Moreno and Inhofe – they are also big clues but for now here is a Sourcewatch link to a brief on the Heartland Institute – get the picture tume:Heartland Institute
The following is a useful site for the lowdown on devious institutes and corporations:SourceWatch
with plenty of starters on that page alone, you may learn much.
- On the contrary I claim, it is DECISIVELY because of the significantly rised mean solar activity since ~1850
What do you quantify as 'significantly' and from where do you source this data?
Are you aware of what percentage of the sun's output actually manages to strike the earth's upper atmosphere?
Now on recent solar output increasesACRIM vs PMOD - Is the sun getting hotter?PMOD vs ACRIMACRIM vs PMOD
BTW nobody serious about the science of climate ignores changes of solar output, indeed it is discussed at length in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Physical Science Base, Chapter 3. and incorporated into climate models see below on those.
Repeating the statement that you believe that there is clear proof that solar activity has increased over the last 150 years does not make it any less of a straw man argument.
Have you actually bothered to consult that IPCC Fourth Assessment Report document?
It is simply that climate models, which have run to successfully replicate past climate change events and including solar output data, do not demonstrate the upward trend in temperatures that has been a feature of recent decades UNLESS the forcing component for GHGs is included.
It would appear that you condemn climate models without actually learning how they are set up and how they work.
The IPCC document cited above aside I would suggest reading Chapter 5 of Sir John Houghton's 'Global Warming: The Complete Briefing'. I have the third edition here.
A useful online description of climate models can be found at:FAQ on climate models
How much of the CO2 will be exhaled into atmosphere by ocean if just its surface of the 10m depth (where the SST should be measured) will in average heat up the 0.8°C (as the IPCC claims)?
((for example if just one cubic meter of water saturated by CO2 is heated just from 17°C to 17,8°C, it can exhale 44,8 grams of CO2...just multiplicate it by number of the cubic meters in question and compare then the result with the amount of the human CO2 emissions minus the estimate of the biosphere reintake - there are many public sources of the estimates, chose the one credible for you...))
I hope a reader of Feynaman and Penrose and here a leading climate pundit fighting the misleaders has the basics in math and internet search to accomplish this task.
Sarcasm does not become you.
So I'll answer in kind.
Twice the quantity of half the amount.
Answering such a question as put is pointless as it would be a classic case of rubbish in, rubbish out. Yes I could answer it but it is based on a simplistic premise or two, but I think you know that.
For a start the surface water layer of the ocean is not homogeneous in temperature and salinity (which will affect specific heat) from pole to pole, or season to season. Or year to year when other factors such as El Nino and La Nina are considered.
Also the top surface layer is not bio-organism free and the amount of bio-organism present is dependent upon temperature and thus varies greatly from little in tropical waters to a great deal near the poles but with no clean demarcations between lines of latitude. In fact the mean bio average runs rather north of the celestial equator and not in a straight or consistently broad band at that.
However the primary productivity of the w2orld's oceans is considerably more complex than indicated above with the distribution of continental landmasses having a not unexpected effect being at a minimum across the central ocean regions but with the low production regions of the North Atlantic being confined to an area around Bermuda and a smaller are due west of Newfoundland Island and due South of the tip of green land. The large Pacific area being divided by a productive extension running along the line affected by the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
Your starting temperature of 17oC is rather odd considering the limits of variability that I know of.
That being only a few of the problems, but I think you know that too.
Perhaps a look at this will help you understand:Ocean heat content revisions
I am well aware of the exchange of CO2 that takes place between ocean levels and sequestration in the carbonate structures of pelagic and benthic organisms which when dead descend to the floor., if that is they don't dissolve first. Stored carbon on the ocean floor tends to come to the surface during high energy events such as volcanism, earthquakes and tsunamis. Such processes we can do little about but we should take care about adding to the release of GHGs from the sea bed.
Unfortunately increasing acidification can interfere with this processes used by organisms to make their structures in the first instance.. Also as the ocean warms there is an increased danger of more methane clathrates being released from the sea bed to join that from melting tundra. Thus a tipping point could be reached where runaway climate change begins and with there being precious little we can do about it. Try a Google on “methane” AND “ocean” AND “Siberia” as a start.
The least said about that remark the better, I think.
(And then you perhaps will also figure out who is here misleading whom and maybe himself...
Steady on. Are you going out of your way to be irritating. If you studied this objectively you will know that the strengths of fact based arguments are very much on my side – unfortunately.
I say unfortunately because I wish it were otherwise. GHGs are just one of the pollutants humans are increasingly adding to the earth's systems as any student of Oceanography would be able to point out.
I find it interesting that most resistance to accepting the truth of anthropogenic climate change appears to come from those countries with the highest per capita output of GHGs (and consumption of resources) i.e., the US, Canada and Australia. Luxembourg actually tops the list, is that where you are from tume?
And yes tume, as water warms so more CO2 will come out of solution. Unfortunately it is we humans that have added massively to the CO2 load in the oceans in the first place and here we are looking at another cause for a tipping point, when the oceans start to give up a century or so of stored CO2 to add to the increasing levels being pumped into the atmosphere, a sink now become another source to exacerbate problems.
As for 'letting nature do its job' that is fine if we had not massively interfered with natural processes in the multitude of ways that we have.
Finally on Global Warming skeptics:Global Warming Roundup