|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 23, 2010 2:09:22 GMT
I am familiar with Ferdinand's work. He and Richard S. Courtney go round and round about this topic.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 23, 2010 9:11:43 GMT
I am familiar with Ferdinand's work. He and Richard S. Courtney go round and round about this topic. I can't imagine what Richard Courtney's argument might be. The isotope ratios are strongly supported by the ice core data. If a 1 deg change in temperature produced a change in CO2 concentration of ~100 ppm then presumably there would be evidence of big changes in CO2 concentration between the MWP and LIA. This graph shows CO2 concentrations over the past 1000 years. It is consistent with a response of a few ppm per deg. www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gifThis 'CO2 increase is natural' argument is a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 23, 2010 12:42:14 GMT
I am familiar with Ferdinand's work. He and Richard S. Courtney go round and round about this topic. I can't imagine what Richard Courtney's argument might be. The isotope ratios are strongly supported by the ice core data. If a 1 deg change in temperature produced a change in CO2 concentration of ~100 ppm then presumably there would be evidence of big changes in CO2 concentration between the MWP and LIA. This graph shows CO2 concentrations over the past 1000 years. It is consistent with a response of a few ppm per deg. www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gifThis 'CO2 increase is natural' argument is a non-starter. The atmospheric concentration of CO 2 is at its lowest at the poles - significantly lower than the 'global average'. There are also papers showing that CO 2 diffuses into ice from trapped air bubbles. It looks like the concentration of CO 2 in ice cores are yet another shaky proxy for actual _global_ atmospheric CO 2 concentrations.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Feb 23, 2010 14:26:25 GMT
But what happens if You heat the oceans? You will release CO2.Virtually all the additional atmospheric CO2 above pre-indusrial levels comes from the burning of fossil fuels. The point is that CO2 is a function of the temperature. Not the other way around. The arctic lag between temperature and CO2 is one proof of that. As this picture show: when warm ocean current is cooled will it absorb CO2 When cold ocean currents is heated will it release CO2. so-gasex.org/img/annfluxu2windmap_low.jpgIf the entire ocean is heated will it release CO2. If the ocean level rise 200 mm in 100 and that is entirely a thermal rise is that releasing a lot of CO2. In which amount? I don't know. Yet. But it have happened before. Changed ocean circulation have released CO2. In that order. www.physorg.com/news98033767.html"This is some of the clearest evidence yet that the enormous carbon release into the atmosphere during the last deglaciation was triggered by abrupt changes in deep ocean circulation,"
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Feb 23, 2010 14:35:10 GMT
I forgot the numbers from the linked article: 600 billion metric tons of carbon were releases by natural causes AFTER the ice age Compared with: Humans have pumped an estimated 300 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and the oceans have taken up about half of it That is about 150 billion tons of "manmade" carbon. Compare with 600 from natural "burps".
CO2 is a function of ocean currents which is a function of wind patterns, which is a function of vapor condensation, which is a function of?
My guess? Solar activity. So the CO2 is a good proxy for solar activity.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 23, 2010 15:13:04 GMT
I forgot the numbers from the linked article: 600 billion metric tons of carbon were releases by natural causes AFTER the ice age Compared with: Humans have pumped an estimated 300 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and the oceans have taken up about half of it That is about 150 billion tons of "manmade" carbon. Compare with 600 from natural "burps". CO2 is a function of ocean currents which is a function of wind patterns, which is a function of vapor condensation, which is a function of? My guess? Solar activity. So the CO2 is a good proxy for solar activity. I really have to question your CO2 numbers. That just doesn't sound right.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Feb 23, 2010 15:24:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 24, 2010 0:37:57 GMT
Re: CO2 There is considerably more CO2 released from natural souces than man-made. However there is a lot of CO2 absorbed naturally and following the last ice age a sort of equilibrium developed whereby, over an annual cycle, X Gt was released and X Gt was absorbed with some slight varaition due ENSO/climatic conditions. Now, though, humans are adding Y Gt per annum (where Y is much less than X) but only an extra ~55% of Y is being absorbed. This means that 45% of Y is accumulating in the atmosphere each year. This is not much in one year but it has been happening for at least 100 years - where Y was very small at first but is now ~7 Gt per year. Most of the ~2 ppm annual increase is from fossil fuel burning.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 24, 2010 1:15:27 GMT
Most of the ~2 ppm annual increase is from fossil fuel burning. ppmv, don't forget the v. It's important.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 24, 2010 3:35:17 GMT
Re: CO2 There is considerably more CO2 released from natural souces than man-made. However there is a lot of CO2 absorbed naturally and following the last ice age a sort of equilibrium developed whereby, over an annual cycle, X Gt was released and X Gt was absorbed with some slight varaition due ENSO/climatic conditions. Now, though, humans are adding Y Gt per annum (where Y is much less than X) but only an extra ~55% of Y is being absorbed. This means that 45% of Y is accumulating in the atmosphere each year. This is not much in one year but it has been happening for at least 100 years - where Y was very small at first but is now ~7 Gt per year. Most of the ~2 ppm annual increase is from fossil fuel burning. You really should check Henry's Law. All the CO 2 in the atmosphere will be washed out by rain as the CO 2 will dissolve in the cold pure water droplets in clouds - the surface area of these droplets will exceed the surface area of the ocean by several orders of magnitude. This is the way CO 2 is 'washed' out of gases in cooling towers. ALL the CO 2 ends up raining down to the surface. Where, if that surface is warm enough, the CO 2 may outgas again according to Henry's law which depends on the temperature and the vapor pressure of the CO 2. Any that outgasses is then subject to being washed back out of the atmosphere again - and so on. This idea that there is only so much capacity for extracting CO 2 is incorrect. Pure water in the clouds and the rain from them is continually cycling washing the CO 2 out. It is the temperature of the oceans that causes outgassing of the washed out CO 2 that drives the atmospheric concentration.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Feb 24, 2010 8:35:47 GMT
Interesting is that this large burps did not cause uncontrolled warming due to passing some dangerous thresholds in CO2 release. "Some scientists warn of the possibility of abrupt climate change" scare that have hunt mankind for some years now is now proved wrong. INSTEAD is the CO2 levels a function of climate change. And even with large "ocean burps" does the CO2 level very fast go back to the levels decided of ocean temperatures. In balance. As You so well state glc: "There is considerably more CO2 released from natural sources than man-made. "
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 24, 2010 17:18:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Feb 28, 2010 20:37:52 GMT
I wrote this on another subject but I belive it is better here: Another forgotten study that show a rather unexpected state in ocean dynamics and heat content: www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story07_11_02.html"El Niño has always been associated with warming of tropical Pacific surface waters and global temperatures. However, new research publishing in the journal Science shows that conditions resembling El Niño were the norm during the last ice age, 18,000 plus years ago, when global temperatures were dramatically cooler than they are today" That is truly negative feedback!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 1, 2010 1:11:44 GMT
There's nothing like using observations to support a hypothesis. Below is why Warmologists can never justify with real world data that CO2 has anything but an immeasurable impact on global surface temperatures, not to mention the unphysical ability to warm oceans. Sense and Sensitivitymy bold So, those are my results. I hold that they are derivable from my hypothesis that clouds and thunderstorms keep the earth’s temperature within a very narrow level. And I say that these results strongly support my hypothesis. Clouds, thunderstorms, and likely other as-yet unrecognized mechanisms hold the climate sensitivity to a value very near zero. And a corollary of that is that a doubling of CO2 would make a change in global temperature that is so small as to be unmeasurable.
In the Northern Hemisphere, for example, the hemispheric average temperature change winter to summer is about 5°C. This five degree change in temperature results from a winter to summer forcing change of no less than 155 watts/metre squared … and we’re supposed to worry about a forcing change of 3.7 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2???
The Southern Hemisphere shows the IPCC claim to be even more ridiculous. There, a winter to summer change in forcing of 182 W/m2 leads to a 2°C change in temperature … and we’re supposed to believe that a 3.7 W/m2 change in forcing will cause a 3° change in temperature? Even if my results were off by a factor of three, that’s still a cruel joke. I digress www.drroyspencer.com/2009/09/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/But what is really curious is that the 9-year change in radiative forcing (warming influence) of the system seen in the last two figures is at least TWICE that expected from the carbon dioxide component alone, and yet essentially no warming has occurred over that period (see first illustration above). How could this be, if the climate system is as sensitive as the IPCC claims it to be? Warmologists, is the light turning on yet? The earth is not like a real glass greenhouse even if kids are being taught in school that it is. Got it......
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 1, 2010 1:30:46 GMT
This is an interesting article. As Eschenbach states clouds function as a governor preventing the planet from freezing or from over heating. That would explain the faint sun paradox. The solar TSI has increased by 70%. The earth's temperature has remained constant with that wide variance of solar energy. Some have appealed to atmospheric CO2 to keep the early planet warm, however, atmospheric CO2 varies widely and the planet's temperature does not follow atmopheric CO2 except in the current ice epoch. In past ice epoches planetary temperature falls first and then millions of years later CO2 falls (If it does fall. In some cases it does not fall.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradoxwattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/#more-16830www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
|
|