XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   Paul Aubrin  wrote:   
   > Le 16/02/2026 à 12:07, Samuel Spade a écrit :   
   > > Paul Aubrin wrote:   
   > >> Le 15/02/2026 à 09:08, Samuel Spade a écrit :   
   > >>> So you think hot weather causes more CO2?  How does that work?   
   > >> Every physicist knows that cold waters absorb CO2 and hot waters release   
   > >> it.   
   > > So does cold water hold more dissolved N2 and O2 than hot water.  So by   
   > > your logic we should be seeing the total N2 and O2 content of the   
   > > atmosphere rise approximately 50% over the last couple centuries like   
   > > CO2.  Have you heard any such reports?   
   > >   
   > > >  According to the IPCC, some 80 GtC are absorbed each year by cold   
   > > > waters and released elsewhere by warm waters. That is some 7 or 8 times   
   > > > human emissions.   
   > >   
   > > Are you saying natural processes are absorbing and releasing large   
   > > amounts of CO2 already, presumably for a net absorption of zero, so it's   
   > > fine for humans to also release CO2 without ever reabsorbing any?   
   > >   
   > > > IPCC experts suppose that emissions exactly balance absorptions every   
   > > > year and every century. Nobody knows, but we obviously can observe some   
   > > > lack of equilibrium some years associated with El Niño/La Niña   
   conditions.   
   > > > Nobody can exclude some very long term trends in those very large CO2   
   > > > oceanic/atmosphere exchange, since temperatures have been increasing   
   > > > since coldest point of the "little ice age" (around 1700).   
   > > >  From the 13C/12C ratio, it seems that 9 or 10 % of the current CO2   
   > > > content of the atmosphere comes from fossil emissions, 90% from   
   > > > "natural" sources.   
   > >   
   > > If true, your numbers seem to deny that CO2 has risen 50% since   
   > > pre-industrial.  How do you explain that?   
   >   
   > Very nice straw man sophism. Those chemical equilibrium are slightly   
   > displaced by (local) temperatures.   
      
   Whatever that means, it must also be true of CO2 as well as any other   
   atmospheric gas.   
      
   What it really means is that you've stumbled over your own illogic.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)