Ocean Buffer Sets C02 Concentrations.

The World is saying that fossil fuel based Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing global warming.  Are they? Is the Planet temperature increasing because Carbon Dioxide (from man's behaviour) is increasing or is it the opposite - Is Carbon Dioxide increasing because Planet temperature is rising? 

Modern politics say that C02 is the culprit. There is little consideration to the possibility that something else might warming the Earth (maybe the Sun) and that C02 has no role in this temperature rise at all. 

This argument (and the political manipulation of it) began when consideration was given to the historical record of Planet temperature rise and concurrent C02 atmospheric concentration increases. Al Gore used the following to support his argument. 

At first glance this looks impressive. Indeed, we can say that when temperature is seen to go up, C02 also goes up. It becomes easy to say that rising C02 levels on the Planet "induced" a rise in temperature. Trouble is, a closer look showed that the rise in C02 came AFTER the rise in temperature, not before as you would expect if it were to cause  the resultant rise in temperature. 

In spite of this rather glaring anomaly, political science still maintains that C02 causes the temperature of the Planet to rise through the mechanism of the Greenhouse effect. Using his original data, Gore projects that 100 ppm of C02 "caused" temperatures to rise 9.5 degrees K for a rise from 200 ppm to a level of 300 ppm ,  before humans pushed the limits even higher. 

????????????????????????   this is twisted up. How does he move the curve flat up to 415 range. on what basis does he justify doing that. 

Is he saying we've gone up 9.5 K since we pushed C02 up from 300 to 400? That would be since 1850.

The graph doesn't make sense.

If this is so, what is the correlation? How effective is C02 in causing the temperature of the Planet to rise? 

Al Gore indicates that the effect is 9.5 degrees Kelvin for each 100 ppm of C02.  Stallinga determined this to be .14 degrees Kelvin for each 100 ppm of C02.

How?   https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=84577    Stallinga analyzed the millennial based records of temperature and C02 levels (350 ppm went to 700 ppm) and came to the conclusion that the greenhouse effect can only explain about .5 K of temperature rise for that C02 increase of 350 ppm.

From this, they calculated the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is .5 K / 350 ppm = 1.4 mK / ppm. (also seen as .14 K / 100 ppm).

LOGICAL ASSUMPTION - THE GOLD STANDARD FOR GREENHOUSE EFFECT IF IT WAS INDEED THE DRIVING FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE CHANGE WAS THEREFORE DECLARED TO BE .14 K / 100 PPM OF CO2. 

 WHAT ABOUT TODAY - MANMADE (?) RISE IN CO2 TO 415 PPM AND CONCURRENT TEMPERATURE INCREASES. 

At the Muana Loa testing station an analysis was performed of the averaged Temperature rise over several decades (ie. Time) versus the measured concentrations of Carbon Dioxide over the same period. THEY BOTH GO UP! 

Since both values (temperature and carbon dioxide) went up when compared to the same variable (time) they will also have to have a correlation to each other. The question is therefore, how well do they correlate with one another, an indication of whether one variable might actually be causing the other to react to its changes by changing itself also.

The charts show pretty clearly  that a 100 ppm rise in C02 corresponded with a rise in temperature of  1.02 degrees Kelvin. This data is termed "Modern Data" in this analysis. 

N.B. - THE GOLD STANDARD FOR GREENHOUSE EFFECT WAS FOUND TO BE .14 K / 100 PPM OF CO2.

2. Modern Data (Moana Koa) - A 100 ppm rise in C02 over 60 years coincided with a rise in temperature of 1.02 degrees Kelvin.  This is 7.5 X higher than the standard dictated for the Greenhouse effect to be happening.

3. Ice Core Data - indicates a rise in temperature of 9.5 K / 100 ppm rise of C02,  68 times higher than  the standard set for Greenhouse Gas warming and 9.3 times higher than the Modern data seen around Moana Koa. 

4. Henry's law - also calculates a rise in temperature of 10 K / 100 ppm of C02, 71 times higher than the standard set for Greenhouse Gas warming in and also 10 times higher than the Modern data seen around Muana Koa. 

5. Henry's law - is remarkably close to the historical data as seen in the Ice Core Data. It appears to predict how much C02 would be in the atmosphere along with a rise in temperature of 10 K over the millenia it was measured. 

6. Greenhouse Effect - as seen in the Modern Data is far too weak to have caused the temperature rise seen from analysis of the Ice Core Data. It must be concluded that it did NOT CAUSE TEMPERATURE RISE AT ALL in the Modern study. 

SCENARIO #2 -RISING OCEAN TEMPERATURES CAUSES A RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

Could an increasing temperature (OF THE OCEAN, NOT OF THE AIR) cause C02 to increase in the atmosphere, presumably with a different correlation than that required to explain global warming by the Greenhouse Effect? ie. If we can't explain atmospheric temperature rise by rise in atmospheric C02, can we explain the atmospheric rise of C02 in the atmosphere by analyzing the temperature of the ocean itself? 

The correlation between ocean temperature and [CO2] is readily explained in the same earlier study https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=84577 by Stallinga using Henry's Law. 

"The capacity of liquids to hold gases in solution is dependent on temperature. When oceans heat up, the capacity decreases and the oceans thus release CO2 (and other gases) into the atmosphere. When we quantitatively analyze this phenomenon, we see that it perfectly fits the observations, without the need of any feedback.  They concluded that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate is negligible and the effect of the ocean temperature on atmospheric [CO2] is exactly, both in sign and magnitude, equal to that as expected on basis of Henry's Law."

ie. CONCLUSION - Henry's Law dictates how much C02 resides in our Atmosphere through uptake or outgassing of the Oceans in relation to its temperature as they are in equilibrium. Any C02 increases (or decreases) in the atmosphere do NOT correlate with the magnitude temperature rise and presumably play no part in causing that same rise in temperature through any theoretical phenomenon such as the IPCC created Greenhouse Effect. 

SCENARIO #3 - THE OCEAN IS A "BUFFER" AND THEREBY CONTROLS ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from many sources the most well known being burning organic matter (eg. forest fires) and man made anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. The C02 being created by these processes is also being diminished through processes such as photosynthesis and more importantly through "dissolving" into the ocean water itself.

The ocean sets the "final" concentration of carbon dioxide by acting as a buffer. It doesn't merely absorb Carbon dioxide, nor does it merely give off Carbon dioxide. IT DOES BOTH! As a buffer, dependent on its temperature, the Ocean absorbs C02 as its waters get cooler and conversely outgasses C02 as its waters get warmer (temperature driven by the Sun). It is in equilibrium with atmospheric C02 and the concentration of C02 in the air above the ocean is dictated by Henry's Law calculated at the existing water temperature when measured. 

We went up 100 ppm of C02 in Modern Data over a 60 year period around Moana Koa. This increase in C02 came out of the ocean waters in sufficient quantity to end up with a value of 415 ppm, 100 ppm higher than the value seen 60 years earlier when the ocean also was colder. It buffered ALL C02 to a new value based on its new water temperature.