I remember the coming ice age of the 70's. That was probably the oil industry wanting us to stock up for the inevitable freeze.
AlBore's Inconvenient Lies
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
I remember the coming ice age of the 70's. That was probably the oil industry wanting us to stock up for the inevitable freeze.
It's funny how you dislike those that have latched onto Gore like pitbulls, yet you seem so willing to negate counter arguements with the typical "oil industry" refutes.
I think the answer as for weather CO2 lags or leads global warming is simple. The temperature of the water controls the ratio of the CO2 in the water to the CO2 in the air. The total amount of CO2 (CO2 in the water plus CO2 in the air) would change this ratio.
nothing is simple on the global scale. the factor you mention is merely part of a web of confusing factors.
Maybe it is not simple but here is more info:
"
Diffusion into Oceans
Carbon dioxide is the gas that is usually used to make the “fizz” in soda drinks. It is most soluble at high pressures and low temperatures, which is why soda is normally served cold from cans or bottles. Some CO2 will remain dissolved with the can or bottle open and at room temperature. This is also why colder oceans can absorb more CO2 than warmer waters.
Molecules of carbon dioxide are continuously being exchanged between the atmosphere and water through a process called diffusion. Diffusion of carbon dioxide into the oceans accounts for nearly half of the carbon extracted from the atmosphere."
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/sinks.htm
thanks for the info. I'm not sure but there may be one or two people on the forum who didnt know that.
For a more mathamatical discription of the CO2 exchange with the ocean the following paper could be helpfull:
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/SCOPE/SCOPE 16/SCOPE_16_1.5.08_Hoffert_287-305.pdf
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/SCOPE/SCOPE 16/SCOPE_16_1.5.08_Hoffert_287-305.pdf
that's an interesting paper by the looks of the abstract, but it's only a theoretical model, and probably one of hundreds
I haven’t read it yet but the model is analytic as opposed to a computer simulation. In my opinion this is the right place to start because simpler equations are easier to test. They give us a better understanding of how things work and how good our assumptions are. A computer model on the other hand has considerably many more assumptions, parameters and opportunities for error.
For anyone who really want to understand the lead lag relationship of temperature I think the paper I linked to is a good place to start. There is a famous slogan that often appears on the shirt of a physicists. It is, “Assume the cow is a sphere”. Well one may look at this approximation as unrealistic if we wish to determine the orbit of a cow around the earth this simple approximation would outperform many naive computer models.
all i'm saying is you could most likely choose ten models and have ten different surprising conclusions
I agree that is why science is an evolving process and this is where the importance of critical thinking comes in. We must ask why are they different? We must ask in what range of values we expect each model to be valid for and we must decide which results to keep and which results to throw away. Remember, nature is the ultimate judge not consensuses.
I think though there is a general rule. It goes, if the more complex model is drastically different then the simple model then it is more likely a consequence that there is an error in the complex model then a phenomena which wasn’t reviled by the simple model. This is like Occam's Razor.
I've heard such things before and it's often seemed totally uneccessary to write it down. it's obvious. And what makes you think that any one of us can perform better "critical thinking" than the developers of those models?
At the start of the Renaissance it was the consensuses view that no one could do better then the Greeks. The people that tried to extend what we new beyond the Greeks faced ridicule but help to bring the birth of the scientific method.
I’ll tell you one thing that gives me faith in your ability to learn and think for yourself. It is your willingness to doubt and challenge any fact. There is a famous quote that goes something link, “The smarter you become the more you realize how much you don’t know”. I think this is something many people have forgotten.
Hey that is pretty cool. I studied both science and engineering in school but I am doing engineering now. I have a degree in physics another in electrical engineering. Almost a master in electrical engineering and way too much debt.
I work in nanotechnology. Been postdocing for 3 years, won $10,000 recently and still in debt now. but working slowly out of it