Sentences with phrase «equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere»

Much of the warming, he says, stems from fluctuations in temperature that have occurred for millions of years — explained by complicated natural changes in equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere — and the latest period of warming will not result in catastrophe.

«Outgassing» would require equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere to be the reverse of reality.

It DOES N'T take any net CO2 outgassing from the oceans in the case that the atmospheric CO2 growth is caused to a significant degree by warming climatic factors — there's MORE than enough human input to achieve the equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

Not exact matches

This approximate balance of fluxes is both directions is a reflection of the equilibrium exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean / terrestrial biosphere.

There is no surprise that the CO2 in the atmosphere winds up partially in the oceans, nor that the amount of CO2 going into or coming out of the oceans varies in time and space — that's simple equilibrium chemistry between the liquid (that is, dissolved) and gaseous phases, and does explain part of the variability about the long term rising trend.

You state in the response to # 10, ``... There is no surprise that the CO2 in the atmosphere winds up partially in the oceans, nor that the amount of CO2 going into or coming out of the oceans varies in time and space — that's simple equilibrium chemistry between the liquid (that is, dissolved) and gaseous phases...» Are the buffers a part of simple equilibrium chemistry, and where can I go to read up on this and how it pertains to the Models.

There is such an equilibrium exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and the surface layer of the oceans, and there is the natural equilibrium that most of vegetation first grows and then decays and returns CO2 to the atmosphere.

The process of such evaporation and then condensation together with those other weather processes is an express route to get heat energy from ocean to surface to atmosphere to space and the bigger the temperature differential between ocean surface, atmosphere and space the faster they must all work to move the atmosphere back towards a temperature equilibrium.

With other words, a temperature increase gives slightly more CO2 in the atmosphere, until a new equilibrium between ocean release / absorption and biosphere aborption / release is established.

The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy differentials between all the many ocean and atmosphere layers back towards equilibrium (Wilde's Law?).

The ocean surface layer is what directly matters, that contains somewhat more CO2 than the atmosphere (1,000 GtC vs. 800 GtC), but the chemical reactions in the ocean water push the equilibrium back, so that ultimately the surface water - air equilibrium is reached with a 1:9 partitioning between water and air, reverse and far away from the 50:1.

I fully agree that AT EQUILIBRIUM individual molecules of CO2 will exchange between two phases (e.g. ocean and atmosphere) with no net mass transfer.

As I've said three times now (and you've ignored) Henry's law determines a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans of 1:50 at equilibrium meaning that when equilibrium between PCO2 (g) and PCO2 (aq) is reached the oceans must contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere.

In a previous post, Eli explored the rapid equilibrium between the three surface reservoirs for carbon dioxide, the atmosphere, the biosphere and the surface of the oceans, maybe to a depth of 1 km.

There is of nevertheless a time lag between the increase or decrease in energy flow from the oceans and the ability of the atmosphere to restore the equilibrium.

The difference is in timing: the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere is reached in 1 - 3 years half life time, but the deep oceans - atmosphere exchanges are limited in flux and need much longer periods to reach equilibrium (half life time ~ 40 years).

QUOTE: «As shown on figure 17 - D the regions for absorption and out - gassing are separate; there is no «global» equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in up - wellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils Sorry, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of dynamic systems here: as long as the total of the CO2 influxes is the same as the total of the CO2 outfluxes, nothing happens in the atmosphere.

As shown on figure 17 - D the regions for absorption and out - gassing are separate; there is no «global» equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean; carbon absorbed tens of years ago at high latitudes is resurfacing in upwellings; carbon absorbed by plants months to centuries ago is degassed by soils.

philc, a key chemical mechanism is equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans.

Somewhat more CO2 will leave the oceans and somewhat less will enter the oceans, but the net increase in the atmosphere still goes strong but slightly reduced, because the difference between the pCO2 in the atmosphere and the new equilibrium is now 16 microatm smaller than before.

Further, the equilibrium pCO2 between ocean surface and atmosphere shifts with 8 μatm / K that is all.

The equilibrium between CO2 in the oceans and in the atmosphere is a matter of pressure, not a matter of quantity.