CO2 in the atmosphere: ca rises faster than expected

[Woodcutter]

[...] On the other hand, what is surprising is this peak of T ° and CO2 all the 100 000 Ans which falls quickly as soon as the average T ° is exceeded of + 2 ° C

How? Why?

It is linked to the cyclicity of solar gains.
The three main variants are:
- eccentricity of the orbit (no 100 000 years' time)
- the obliquity (inclination of the axis of the poles) with a step of 40 000 years
- the precession that has a time step of 26 000 years.

Then everything is linked. But the base is there.

[Woodcutter]

is there a barrier to the greenhouse effect? ​​[...]

The greenhouse effect is produced by the action of IR on triatomic gases present in the atmosphere: it therefore occurs wherever these gases are present and the notion of "overdrive"has no place ...

Not to be confused with the greenhouse effect produced by the glass pane of a greenhouse, this is not quite the same thing...

[thejoker]

I understand your story carbon sinks
who could have thought that one day the ocean could swallow the co²
while co² back toujous surface?

Whoa!

You got a something true difficulty understanding you?

You know the principle of the solubility of gases in liquids, related to the partial pressure of these gases?

do you mean that they are soluble so changes their molecular structure?
so they are no longer gases?
then according to the temperature of the ocean would become gas again?

[thejoker]

[...] On the other hand, what is surprising is this peak of T ° and CO2 all the 100 000 Ans which falls quickly as soon as the average T ° is exceeded of + 2 ° C

How? Why?

It is linked to the cyclicity of solar gains.
The three main variants are:
- eccentricity of the orbit (no 100 000 years' time)
- the obliquity (inclination of the axis of the poles) with a step of 40 000 years
- the precession that has a time step of 26 000 years.

Then everything is linked. But the base is there.

So the climate and notament the least difference summer / winter is the oblique?

and cooling hypotheses to eccentricity?

roughly the co² content is a consequence of the warming and not the cause?

[Woodcutter]

[..] do you mean that they are soluble therefore changing their molecular structure?
so they are no longer gases?
then according to the temperature of the ocean would become gas again?

Change their molecular structure? No, not that I know ...

Finally their behavior depends on gases. The dissolved O2 remains mainly in the form of O2 whereas the CO2 for example forms a weak acid.

When CO2 dissolves, it reacts with water to form a balance of ionic and nonionic chemical species:
- dissolved free carbon dioxide (CO2 (aq)),
- carbonic acid (H2CO3),
- bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO32-).

The proportion of these species depends on factors such as the temperature and salinity of the seawater.

It's pretty simple to understand, right?
But there is no "change in molecular structure" in there ...

For the weather, Cap'taine has given you enough elements so that you do not have to come back, I guess?

Go, I make an effort for you: the amount of water-soluble gas depends on the amount of gas in the air (the more air there is, the more water will be dissolved in the water ) but this quantity also depends on the temperature of the water (the hotter the water, the less dissolved gas) ...

So the problem is to know which is the most important factor, the T ° of water or the amount of gas in the air?
It appears that the increase in T ° of the oceans prevents the solubility of CO2 in them increases, even if the amount of CO2 increases in the air.

[thejoker]

so co² is transformed into something other than co²
so it's not the same assembly of molecules anymore, right?

then this proportion of co² variable in the oceans would be in cause or consequence of the temperature of the atmosphere, is it?

Well then, you have to know

cause or consequence?

by the way you still have not learned about svensmark?

Professor Svensmark and his Danish team then launched an experimental program project with CERN (Geneva Center for Nuclear Study and Research). This program called "CLOUD Program". It is an international collaboration involving no less than 60 scientists belonging to 17 major scientific institutions from 10 countries. The investment is evaluated at 9 million Euros: It is not nothing! The goal of this program is to establish the physical link between ionizing radiation from space and the formation of clouds in the troposphere of our planet. In other words, to try to understand if and how the ionizing particles can change the cloud cover of the earth and therefore modify its sunshine and therefore ... its temperature, which many continue to deny ... like Lord Brougham in 1801 and the IPCC report in 2007!

http://www.pensee-unique.fr/theses.html

[Woodcutter]

[...] so the climate and notament the least differences summer / winter is oblique?

and cooling hypotheses to eccentricity?

roughly the co² content is a consequence of the warming and not the cause?

Listen ... I want to be nice and everything, but there is one thing that I only support very moderately is to be taken for what I am not, in this case a moron!

If you don't know what the summer / winter differences are due to, I would like to know why you are hitting us big theories (fairly well documented at first glance) that there is a "warming plot". .. What could you understand there?

Regarding the responsibility of the sun, the latest accepted theory shows that variations in solar energy supply are the cause of temperature changes on the Earth's surface large scale of time. But these variations do not explain changes such as those recently measured.

It can be said that the CO2 content and the mean terrestrial T ° are very closely correlated for a period that goes back up to more than 650 000 years (drilling of the dome C) but that the basis of the variations, which occur at The scale of a few millennia (and not a few years as is the case at this time) is due to the sun.
In fact, there is always a balance between the Earth's mean T ° and the GHG content of its atmosphere.
Recall that the content of GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O) has never been as strong as now since 650 000 years (same drilling).

Over long periods, the CO2 / T ° C correlation is due to many factors, mainly related to the living world, and many feedbacks.
The big problem today is precisely these feedbacks since it is also known that CO2 alone accounts for less than half of the global warming projected by IPCC modeling.

To learn more about variations in solar intake: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Param%C3%A ... kovi%C4%87

[thejoker]

the summer / winter differences are due to the inclination of the earth on its axis as far as I know!

What solar theory did you accept?

here in the link it is specified that it is on a very very short time scale not to say simultaneous


from where do you come out that the drilling on 650 000 years that estimate the concentration of co² are correlated with an average of temperature terrestrial on the same period?
there is no consensus on this subject except in the non-scientific report of the giec!

I do not understand why you absolutely want to co² the agent of warming even see the conservation of heat ....

am wondering if answering next to the plate with some ctrl c v is not the beginning of a deni of science see cretinism ???

[Woodcutter]

so co² is transformed into something other than co²
so it's not the same assembly of molecules anymore, right?

then this proportion of co² variable in the oceans would be in cause or consequence of the temperature of the atmosphere, is it?

Well then, you have to know

cause or consequence?

Little fun, go ..

Let's play card on the table, who are you?
Are you a member of the zetetic site who pretends to be an idiot?
You are really a fool ?

Let's continue in "teacher mode" ...
The CO2 remains partially CO2 in dissolved form, but it is also formed by reaction in water an acid, and ions, inevitably.
Assembly of molecules? Please specify your question, student Plaisantin!

Solubility of CO2 in water is a function of T ° water and partial CO2 in atmosphere. Point.

by the way you still have not learned about svensmark? [...]

I do not have to worry about you, pupil Plaisantin!
But I will try to read this gentleman.

[Woodcutter]

the summer / winter differences are due to the inclination of the earth on its axis as far as I know!

If you want, but the inclination of this axis relative to the plane of the orbit does not change.
It's just because it's not the same hemisphere that's facing the sun.

What solar theory did you accept?

Milankovic's theory is written on it!

here in the link it is specified that it is on a very very short time scale not to say simultaneous

Huh? What when who where? A little more details student Plaisantin, please!

from where do you come out that the drilling on 650 000 years that estimate the concentration of co² are correlated with an average of temperature terrestrial on the same period?
there is no consensus on this subject except in the non-scientific report of the giec!

From the authors of these studies, published at the end of November 2005 in the journal "Science".
Worked on the drilling of the C EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) dome LGGE (Laboratory of Galciology and Geophysics of the Environment) and the LSCE (Laboratory of Climate Sciences and Environment) with regard to French.
An excerpt from the article accompanying this issue:

One of the "Report" is the history of the stable relationship between climate and carbon cycle during the Pleistocene.

There is no "estimate" of CO2 but QUOTE which is "a little" different.

Up CO2, down enD (or δ18O: isotope of oxygen completely linked to T °).

The article can be read here, on the CNRS website.

Regarding your assessment of the quality of IPCC reports, I leave you with full responsibility.

I do not understand why you absolutely want to co² the agent of warming even see the conservation of heat ....

Heat preservation? Who said that ? Not me anyway...
Warming ? Yeah, because it's a GHG, it's part of the greenhouse effect, and so it's growing.

am wondering if answering next to the plate with some ctrl c v is not the beginning of a deni of science see cretinism ???

Answer next to the plate? So this one is strong ...

Well, you're nice, go ask your questions elsewhere, go back to play with your friends negationists of the forum zetetic and stop making us shit ...