Understanding the Feedback Loop: Carbon Dioxide and Ocean Temperatures

  • Thread starter Thread starter pink94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Feedback Loops
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the feedback loop between increasing carbon dioxide levels and rising ocean temperatures. As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises, it absorbs more infrared energy, leading to higher air and ocean temperatures. Warmer ocean temperatures decrease the solubility of carbon dioxide, resulting in more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Participants seek clarification on the positive and negative aspects of this feedback loop, with some suggesting it may be a negative feedback process. Understanding this cyclical relationship is crucial for grasping the implications of climate change.
pink94
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
23. Feedback loops
a) As carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere more outgoing infrared energy is absorbed which increases air temperatures and therefore ocean temperatures. As ocean temperatures increase carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere because less carbon dioxide can be dissolved in seawater (i.e. the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases with higher temperatures). Draw the appropriate arrows between the boxes to complete the feedback loop described above.

I have attached what I think is the right way to display the feedback loop but I don't understand the positives and the negatives could someone explain
 

Attachments

  • uuu.png
    uuu.png
    11.1 KB · Views: 532
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
pink94 said:
23. Feedback loops
a) As carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere more outgoing infrared energy is absorbed which increases air temperatures and therefore ocean temperatures. As ocean temperatures increase carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere because less carbon dioxide can be dissolved in seawater (i.e. the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases with higher temperatures). Draw the appropriate arrows between the boxes to complete the feedback loop described above.

I have attached what I think is the right way to display the feedback loop but I don't understand the positives and the negatives could someone explain

Welcome to the PF. Maybe try uploading the attachment again? I'm not seeing it.
 
I did its not showing my positives and negatives though
 
For some reason, in your original post, only the attachment thumbnail shows up, but when I click on the thumbnail, instead of getting an enlarged view, I just get a blank black screen. I was able to go into your original post and grab the URL for the attachment. This should display it directly in the post:

attachment.php?attachmentid=63660&stc=1&d=1383622904.png


Does that show up?

Regarding the actual question, what do you think is the relationship between these quantities. Hint: the process is cyclical, so just choose somewhere to start and go through the process, labelling the direction of the change in each quantity.

Another interesting question: is this positive or negative feedback?
 

Attachments

  • attachment.php?attachmentid=63660&stc=1&d=1383622904.png
    attachment.php?attachmentid=63660&stc=1&d=1383622904.png
    11.1 KB · Views: 350
I think its negative
 
Image is "black on transparent", and the background of attachment window is black, so the image is displayed black on black.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top