Sentences with phrase «for outgassing»

Pinning increase of CO2 on natural sources gives an outrageously high activation energy for outgassing.

The same for outgassing — i.e., are my fidings supported or refuted anywhere?

As I said earlier, it takes special situations for outgassing, like when warm water mixes with cold water.

Not exact matches

Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man - made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for power generation and transport use.

Its oceans didn't develop for about a billion years, due to a thicker crust and lithosphere that delayed the start of volcanic outgassing.

«We've got a spacecraft on the way to Ceres, so we don't have to wait long before getting more context on this intriguing result, right from the source itself,» said Carol Raymond, the deputy principal investigator for Dawn at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. «Dawn will map the geology and chemistry of the surface in high resolution, revealing the processes that drive the outgassing activity.»

SwRI scientists created a new model for impact - generated outgassing on the early Earth.

Beyond serving as a potentially important tool for dealing with coolant leaks, «the RGA should help give us a better understanding of the space environment immediately outside the station — it can provide a good indication of what's outgassing from the surfaces of the station,» Kowitt said.

Once formed by either serpentinization or microbes, methane could be stored as a stable clathrate hydrate — a chemical structure that traps methane molecules like animals in a cage — for later release to the atmosphere, perhaps by gradual outgassing through cracks and fissures or by episodic bursts triggered by volcanism.

The carbon that was locked into this crust was essentially lost, tied up for the 60 million years or so that it took the minerals to get recycled back to the surface or outgassed through volcanoes.

Regarding outgassing, please note this paper: http://www.climate.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/2002Takahashi.pdf which is freely available, so no excuse for not reading it.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but to me it sounded as if you claimed ocean outgassing is responsible for the current increase in atmospheric CO2.

Now, identify that «sink», or ask those that claim the increase is due to ocean outgassing to identify that sink for you.

Let us take for example something you touched on, ``... A big issue here is that any correlation between the two can be due to CO2 outgassing...» plus the argument that «the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today» or «CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 800 years».

If you have this notion that ocean outgassing is the cause of the current CO2 increase, I recommend you do some simple calculations for yourself (see below).

I read online within the past two weeks that Russian scientists were up in the northern oceans somewhere and they saw tons of hot spots of methane bubbling out from the ocean surface.I think it was in ScienceDaily.The question posed by these scientists was «is this outgassing a normal melting of methane that has been going on for many thousands of years, or, is it an upward tick of significance?»

Please provide cites and references for claims like this, especially on a thread that is precisely about exploring the quantitative consequences of this outgassing.

For the fall values, the author explicitely describes a mechanism where outgassing CO2 out of the (still warm) soils is increasing CO2 levels with mainly stagnant weather as we see often in fall.

If there's an excess coming into atmosphere not accounted for by ocean outgassing, or known land / biosphere emissions, or fossil fuels, or boosted northern forest growth (and decay), or permafrost melt, then it's necessary to look for it.

The Japanese evidence also disproves the often - cited hypothesis that Siberia and other areas of northern Russia were natural vents for large scale CO2 outgassing, exacerbating global warming fears.

In warmer years such as 1998, this outgassing also increases, and that correlation is seen in the data, so you have to allow for that when comparing the increase to emissions.

So of course there is a discrepancy after outgassing is accounted for.

You assert that CO2 dominates temperature over 400 million years, and that ocean outgassing has been accounted for.

The models make atmospheric CO2 concentration the cause of warming, but fail to account for either the solubility effect of CO2 in water, the intense outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, or the effects of climatologists» formula for the residence time of atmospheric CO2 (it's quite short - lived (~ 1.5 years), not long - lived (decades to centuries), and its lumpy in the atmosphere, not global).

Cooler seas, less outgassing, more co2 absorbed, soon it'll be global cooling causes ocean acidification; — RRB - Can't wait for that one.....

Its hard for me to imagine how someone is going to suck out an equivalent 4 inch thick layer across the North Slope and capture the gas before the hydrate starts outgassing like crazy when it gets exposed to higher temperatures.

A small correction is made for differential outgassing of O2 and N2 with the increased temperature of the ocean as estimated by Levitus et al. (2000).

So how, with those uncertainties in the movement rates, are you still 100 % certain that — for example — the deep sea clathrates are not outgassing more CO2 because of a current warmed 800 years ago during the MWP?

I don't need to explain it for my Model to remain valid.The concept of ocean outgassing in response to more sunlight is a useful add on but not an integral component because I do not ascribe significant climate forcing to that CO2.

If humans continue burning fossil fuel at present rates for another century or two, they may reach the point where outgassing from these CO2 reservoirs will exceed the capacity of human control.

It is plan bad arithmetic to say that outgassing 16 ppm per degree, even for the whole ocean, can feed an uptake of 300 ppm for the new seawater when the rise was what, 400 ft??

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

The net impact of the 2015 — 2016 El Niño event on the global carbon cycle is an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would likely be larger if it were not for the reduction in outgassing from the ocean.

I agree that the outgassing poblem is largely overblown (except for those few who have become chemically - sensitized and have to spend the rest of their lives avoiding the world), but there are many legitimate arguments against the use of a petrochemical, high - embodied energy, non-renewable, non-recyclable, non-permeable, difficult to remove, problematic for renovation, and expensive insulating material.