I survived 400ppm, did you?

[Antilogic]

That's an interesting conclusion you drew there, given that their models did predict droughts and there were droughts. The timing was just off.

In other news, nobody's perfect.

 

[Cutlass]

And the results have been somewhat more varied, with a large increase in extreme weather events of all descriptions and a great deal more variation and inconsistent weather.

 

[Antilogic]

Nah, you see, SCIENTISTS said my coffee would be too hot last Tuesday and it wasn't, therefore global warming is bunk.

 

[Cutlass]

Were those SCIENTISTS by any chance geologists?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The results were puzzling because the assumptions being made are wrong.

Do I detect a pattern there? Science isn't perfect -> replace it by own emotional explanation
But CH, this is a textbook troll thread, well done

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I like this reasoning.

The Great Dissapointment proves Christianity is bunk.

Your move.

 

[Antilogic]

Were those SCIENTISTS by any chance geologists?

Probably. They like their coffee cold and bitter, like their failed assumptions.

 

[bhsup]

Okay, nobody bite my head off. Sincere question because frankly I don't follow this global warming stuff much. I have -heard- that there are two possible scenarios. CO2 is increasing because temperatures are increasing allowing for greater atmospheric saturation, or temperatures are increasing because CO2 levels are increasing. Is there any validity to both views? Is one absolutely proven wrong and the other proven right? Is it presumed one is wrong and the other right with some evidence to back it?

 

[Cutlass]

Okay, nobody bite my head off. Sincere question because frankly I don't follow this global warming stuff much. I have -heard- that there are two possible scenarios. CO2 is increasing because temperatures are increasing allowing for greater atmospheric saturation, or temperatures are increasing because CO2 levels are increasing. Is there any validity to both views? Is one absolutely proven wrong and the other proven right? Is it presumed one is wrong and the other right with some evidence to back it?

OK. The CO2 levels are higher than they have been in a million years. What that tells you is that this is way outside of anything that has anything to do with natural climate variations. Now if natural climate variations is out, then what is left is human actions. And we know damned well that humans have put carbon back into the air at a rate faster than nature can take it out of the air. It took millions of years to make and bury all that oil and coal that we are now burning.

So we know CO2 is humans fault. And that it is far outside of natural variation. So now we also have weather that is far outside natural variation. And we have a good theory that says one will lead to the other.

What to believe? If it quacks like a duck....

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@VRWC
Well from what I have gathered over the years such feedback-loops are in general a common phenomena as far as the state of the planet as a whole goes. A natural consequence of the complex and on the long run fragile independencies determining our environment as a whole I suppose. If you shift a big factor, other factors depending on that factor shift, shifting the factor even further...
But even if true in the specific case you stipulate, the question still remains if it is advisable to heaten up such a loop or if we should rather thrive to soften it.
edit: Though then again, Cutlass has a good point that the timing of the CO2-rise is pretty daming. And its potential feedback-loop-nature makes it only all the more crucial to act.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Okay, nobody bite my head off. Sincere question because frankly I don't follow this global warming stuff much. I have -heard- that there are two possible scenarios. CO2 is increasing because temperatures are increasing allowing for greater atmospheric saturation, or temperatures are increasing because CO2 levels are increasing. Is there any validity to both views? Is one absolutely proven wrong and the other proven right? Is it presumed one is wrong and the other right with some evidence to back it?

Simply put: the world without humans produces CO2 and scrubs CO2. There is a small amount over-capacity to regulate CO2. This capacity is known. Human CO2 emissions are also known. And it's sligthly bigger. So even though compared to what the world produces it's small, it's enough to upset the balance.

Link I posted last page has lots of info and aswers your question better than I could.

 

[Antilogic]

Okay, nobody bite my head off. Sincere question because frankly I don't follow this global warming stuff much. I have -heard- that there are two possible scenarios. CO2 is increasing because temperatures are increasing allowing for greater atmospheric saturation, or temperatures are increasing because CO2 levels are increasing. Is there any validity to both views? Is one absolutely proven wrong and the other proven right? Is it presumed one is wrong and the other right with some evidence to back it?

The former explanation you identified would only make sense if the atmospheric levels of CO2 were close to its vapor pressure for the given temperature. If the amount of CO2 exceeded this level, it would start condensing (hence, it has saturated the atmosphere).

However, for a gas like CO2, that isn't the case--the atmospheric temperature is simply too far above the boiling point (it's around -58 degrees centigrade, or below -70 degrees F). I've worked in factories that had CO2 alarms set to go off at 1% and 3% atmospheric concentration, significantly higher than 400 ppm, for example. We aren't anywhere close to the saturation point.



EDIT: Here's the phase diagram for CO2 from wikipedia, for reference. To be at saturation, you need to be along one of the lines corresponding to two phases. Atmospheric pressure is close to 1 bar, so at the bottom of the chart, you are solidly in the gas zone.

Spoiler :

 

[bhsup]

I thank you all for your explanations. Much appreciated.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd like to add that from my understanding a feedback-loop concerning the relation of temperature and CO2 is not limited to higher saturation capacity of the air, but about higher temperatures simply causing more CO2 to get away from the ocean. Or in other words, it isn't so much abut the saturation of the air but the saturation of the water. At least that is something I have "heard".

 

[Antilogic]

I'd like to add that from my understanding a feedback-loop concerning the relation of temperature and CO2 is not limited to higher saturation capacity of the air, but about higher temperatures simply causing more CO2 to get away from the ocean. Or in other words, it isn't so much abut the saturation of the air but the saturation of the water. At least that is something I have "heard".

I think the opposite actually occurs--increased temperature generally increases solubility of a component in a mixture (and, to contrast, ice can hold remarkably less CO2 than water). However, CO2 is complicated because it undergoes a reaction with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), so you have to take that into account as well.

I'd have to look up some figures for this to work through the problem, it's been awhile since I worked with Smith and Van Ness.

 

[uppi]

I think the opposite actually occurs--increased temperature generally increases solubility of a component in a mixture (and, to contrast, ice can hold remarkably less CO2 than water).

This is generally true for solids, but the solubility of gases usually decreases with temperature.

 

[Ajidica]

Just recently the amount of CO² in recent history. So far we have survived and most people would not have even noticed this happened. Nothing to see here, just move along.

The thread title is the question to be answered.

My grandfather survived WWII, but that doesn't mean WWII was a neutral thing.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This is generally true for solids, but the solubility of gases usually decreases with temperature.

Question: Where does this leave liquids? Or water in particular?

 

[Earthling]

Had Aegis

 

[Antilogic]

This is generally true for solids, but the solubility of gases usually decreases with temperature.

That's embarrassing--I just checked a table of Henry's Law constants and you might be right (for water, at least).

Question: Where does this leave liquids? Or water in particular?

That works along with the solids rule mentioned above--you can increase the amount of sugar that dissolves in the same amount of water by raising the temperature, for example, which is how sweet tea is manufactured.