|
Post by dogsbody on May 21, 2010 20:28:45 GMT
Nautonier, I pretty much agree with your comments. I think the warming is directly related to solar activity, the cosmic ray cloud effect as described by Svensmark and supported by many solar and astrophysicists.
Have another look at the graph that I have posted. You can see the evidence of Henry's law as you suggest. In the Elnino years warmer years CO2 levels rise, in the Lanina cooler years CO2 levels fall. Not sure how the warmers will explain this one, but I wait with great expectation.There's nothing to explain. Can we get this sorted once and for all. I've answered it - socold's answered it and it still doesn't seem to have sunk in. CO2 LEVELS RISE EVERY YEAR. THEY RISE IN EL NINO YEARS. THEY ALSO RISE IN LA NINA YEARS. THEY DO NOT FALL. The only difference being that they rise faster in El Nino years than in La Nina years. The increases in atmospheric CO2 since ~1850 is almost entirely due to fossil fuel burning. Sorry about my sloppy wording. But if you had looked at the graph however, it refers to mean annual growth rate of CO2 as stated in one of my previous posts. In ElNino years both temp and mean annual growth rate of Co2 is greater in La nina years both are lower. There is a lot to explain if you believe that anthropgenic CO2 is the driver.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 21, 2010 20:40:04 GMT
Using the totally spurious bubbles in ice-core record an invalid proxy. CO 2 will dissolve in the water at the poles and the air concentrataion be lower (shows in the satellite imagery from NOAA) and what CO 2 there is in ice bubble diffuses into the ice. Comment 2-4A commenter (0740.1) states that ice core CO2 measurements are impacted by water contamination, and that there are no other methods of measuring historical CO2 (commenter 3722 also objects to ice core record manipulation). Several commenters (0339, 0714.1, 2210.5, 3722) have cited either Beck (2007) or Jaworowski to support a contention that CO2 was at high concentrations in the recent past immediately before the Mauna Loa record started, or during past interglacials (0655). Response (2-4)We disagree with the assertion by several commenters that estimates of historical CO2 concentrations are incorrect. According to IPCC (Jansen et al., 2007), “it is possible to derive time series of atmospheric trace gases and aerosols for the period from about 650 kyr [thousand years] to the present from air trapped in polar ice and from the ice itself.” This methodology has been “verified against recent (i.e., post-1950) measurements made by direct instrumental sampling.” Additionally, these measurements are consistent with various less accurate methods such as using the size of stomatal pores on tree leaves, boron isotope measurements in plankton buried under the ocean, or carbon isotope ratios in algae buried in the ocean floors, moss samples, and foraminefera carbonate shells. Therefore, there is extremely high confidence in the CO2 values determined from the ice core records, and we disagree that there is any evidence that water contamination or other manipulations reduce the confidence in the ice core estimates. The commenters cited a theory from Jaworowski that water contamination in the ice core record reduces its reliability, and that the IPCC CO2 historical estimates require shifting the ice core records an arbitrary number of years in order to make them line up with the instrumental record. The critiques of Jaworowski on the shift were addressed by Hans Oeschger (1995), who pointed out that the ice core record shift was done in accordance with theoretical estimates of the rate of diffusion in gases in firn, and that these theoretical estimates were confirmed by isotopic enrichment in line with theory. Güllük et al. (1998) also rebutted Jaworowski on contamination, stating that “Jaworowski et al. [1992, 1994] suggested that CO2 measurements may be subject to fractionation due to clathrate formation and destruction. The good agreement of our CO2 measurements with those made by LGGE using the milling extraction procedure makes this artefact unlikely.” Similarly, Raynaud et al. (1993) found that the objections by Jaworowski were unfounded, demonstrating that the changes in CO2 and methane (CH4) are similar for different interglacial periods, regardless of depth, and that ice cores from different locations give the same values regardless of different “brittle zone” conditions between the different locations. You and glc tell us repeatedly that the CET cannot be used as an indication for the Little Ice Age being 'global' yet happily use a polar ice core for global CO 2Using a polar ice core for GLOBAL atmospheric CO 2 content is like using a rain gauge in the Sahara for GLOBAL precipitation levels.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 20:44:29 GMT
It's that simple - in warm years co2 rises faster and in cool years it rises slower. Why is it rising at all in the longterm? human emissions. It was noted above that the oceans is a net absorber of co2 so outgassing from the ocean is not a candidate for the rise. The oceans over the past century have limited rather than contributed to the rise. That sort of begs the question. It would be expected given the fact that you claim to be the case that after 2 years still 75% of CO2 was to be emitted from the ocean to get to equilibrium in the scenario that most CO2 is a result of ocean warming. Thus you cannot in good conscience use an argument that CO2 was not yet decreasing with the small drop in atmospheric temperatures experienced by a La Nina. You need to remain consistent in your arguments and not selectively adopt a random skeptic position as it suits your needs. This has been demonstrated. As the IPCC points out: "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon by the ocean changes the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. Dissolved CO2 forms a weak acid.1 As CO2 increases, pH decreases, that is, the ocean becomes more acidic. Ocean pH can be computed from measurements of DIC and alkalinity. A decrease in surface pH of 0.1 over the global ocean was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994 (Sabine et al., 2004b; Raven et al., 2005), with the lowest decrease (0.06) in the tropics and subtropics, and the highest decrease (0.12) at high latitudes, consistent with the lower buffer capacity of the high latitudes compared to the low latitudes." Should we believe this as you tend to be selective in what you believe. I would be interested in knowing how an average ocean ph was calculated for 1750 to the accuracy of a tenth of pH increment. Clearly it was not sampling so it must be tea leave reading or something like that. The origin of the atmospheric co2 rise (which is the source of the ocean carbon uptake) has been shown to be anthropogenic, as in Response (2-2) above: "As stated in CCSP (2007) “The cause of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.” There are many ways in which scientists determine the emissions associated with particular sources and activities. These are explained in detail in Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (Denman et al., 2007), and they include isotope signatures, oxygen depletion, north/south gradient, and partitioning of excess carbon into sinks. As stated in the Third Assessment Report (IPCC, 2001c), “Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 content is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions— most importantly fossil fuel burning. First, atmospheric O2 is declining at a rate comparable with fossil fuel emissions of CO2 (combustion consumes O2). Is combustion the only process that consumes O2? If not no answer has been given. Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of 14C, and depleted content of 13C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. Wasn't that recently determined to be only 3%? Third, the increase in observed CO2 concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs.” Are there other things that occur more frequently in the northern hemisphere? Like I have seen literature claiming that global warming was causing more forest fires. Got some figures on that?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 20:59:51 GMT
The "4 years" clearly relates to the turnover time This is not the same as the time taken to remove the excess due to an impulse of CO2, i.e. the residence time (I think they call it). CO2 LEVELS RISE EVERY YEAR. THEY RISE IN EL NINO YEARS. THEY ALSO RISE IN LA NINA YEARS. THEY DO NOT FALL. The only difference being that they rise faster in El Nino years than in La Nina years. Considering both the colored quotes are yours above. . . .would you expect anything different? Clearly a reversal of the rate of cooling in the presence of increasing emissions reveals a strong natural component to the increases in CO2. It would be refreshing to actually see a consistent evaluation of this rather than the constant cherry picking of the most radical scare science folks can get their hands on that is clearly inconsistent with one another.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 22:29:26 GMT
You and glc tell us repeatedly that the CET cannot be used as an indication for the Little Ice Age being 'global' yet happily use a polar ice core for global CO 2Because co2 in the atmosphere is well mixed and ice cores sample that.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 22:42:37 GMT
It's that simple - in warm years co2 rises faster and in cool years it rises slower. Why is it rising at all in the longterm? human emissions. It was noted above that the oceans is a net absorber of co2 so outgassing from the ocean is not a candidate for the rise. The oceans over the past century have limited rather than contributed to the rise. That sort of begs the question. It would be expected given the fact that you claim to be the case that after 2 years still 75% of CO2 was to be emitted from the ocean to get to equilibrium in the scenario that most CO2 is a result of ocean warming. Put it this way - during cold years the ocean absorbs slightly more than during warm years, but it's always absorbing more than it emits. This is answered in response to comment 7-61 Comment (7-61)A number of commenters (0700.1, 1961, 2759, 2818, 2828.1, 2972.1, 3411.1, 3440.1, 3446.1, 3394.1, 3722, 3477, 7031, and 11453.1) disagree with the TSD’s conclusion that ocean acidification is occurring, including the TSD statement that “Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the average ocean pH level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.”. Two commenters (3477 and 7031) describe that there is no compelling evidence in the scientific literature that current ocean water chemistry is different from historical water chemistry... Response (7-61)We reviewed the discussion in the TSD, and the underlying assessment literature, in light of these comments, and we find that the TSD provides a balanced summary of the robust lines of evidence from the assessment literature demonstrating that increased absorption of CO2 in the oceans has resulted in a 30% increase in average acidity compared with the pre-industrial baseline (decrease of ~0.1 in pH units). This statement is taken from Bindhoff et al. 2007, and it is based on a methodology described in Raven et al. (2005) that integrates current observations of ocean pH, analyses of CO2 concentration in ice cores, our understanding of the rate of CO2 absorption and retention in the surface oceans (air-sea gradient in partial pressure of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean), and knowledge of the CaCO3 buffer (a geochemical feature in the oceans which allows seawater to accommodate the addition of an acid or base without appreciable pH change). The measured 0.1 pH unit decrease using this methodology is consistent with global time series station measurements which indicate that pH has decreased 0.02 units per decade (Bindoff et al., 2007). We disagree with the comments that there is no compelling evidence that current water chemistry is different from historical water chemistry or that the observed 0.1 unit decline cannot be validated in the historical record... There are three lines of evidence presented. They don't all have to be conclusive, it's the sum of the three that is overwhelming. Besides that these three factors are not the only lines of evidence. Another one not mentioned is that we also know how much co2 humans emit into the atmosphere, and it's more than the total co2 accumulated in the atmosphere per year.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 23:15:20 GMT
That sort of begs the question. It would be expected given the fact that you claim to be the case that after 2 years still 75% of CO2 was to be emitted from the ocean to get to equilibrium in the scenario that most CO2 is a result of ocean warming. Put it this way - during cold years the ocean absorbs slightly more than during warm years, but it's always absorbing more than it emits. Of course we would not want to conclude that by reading the tea leaves in the bottom of your tea cup so how was that determined?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 23:22:10 GMT
analyses of CO2 concentration in ice cores This would assume no chemical reactions in the presence of acids in the ice cores. It also assumes that despite a range of ocean pH in today's ocean that spans 7 times the range of assumed average pH change that the selected ice cores were representative of the entire ocean in prehistoric times. I bet a gypsy could do better with tea leaves. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 23:26:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2010 23:31:23 GMT
There are three lines of evidence presented. They don't all have to be conclusive, it's the sum of the three that is overwhelming. Besides that these three factors are not the only lines of evidence. Another one not mentioned is that we also know how much co2 humans emit into the atmosphere, and it's more than the total co2 accumulated in the atmosphere per year. Its all very interesting but one could also argue that all the people in the world each year flush more toilet water than what poured into New Orleans in 2005 so should be blame the New Orleans flood on people flushing their toilets into the ocean?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 23:33:51 GMT
analyses of CO2 concentration in ice cores This would assume no chemical reactions in the presence of acids in the ice cores. That assumes experts haven't validated the co2 ice core measurements and checked against such biases as contamination. Response 2-4 again: "According to IPCC (Jansen et al., 2007), “it is possible to derive time series of atmospheric trace gases and aerosols for the period from about 650 kyr [thousand years] to the present from air trapped in polar ice and from the ice itself.” This methodology has been “verified against recent (i.e., post-1950) measurements made by direct instrumental sampling.” Additionally, these measurements are consistent with various less accurate methods such as using the size of stomatal pores on tree leaves, boron isotope measurements in plankton buried under the ocean, or carbon isotope ratios in algae buried in the ocean floors, moss samples, and foraminefera carbonate shells. Therefore, there is extremely high confidence in the CO2 values determined from the ice core records, and we disagree that there is any evidence that water contamination or other manipulations reduce the confidence in the ice core estimates." The ice cores are used to determine the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. What the experts are saying is that they can take the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to work out how much carbon is absorbed in the upper ocean, which in turn will indicate the acidity. So yes they are saying that using chemistry they can calculate how much the co2 change in atmosphere will affect surface ocean pH.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 23:38:45 GMT
There are three lines of evidence presented. They don't all have to be conclusive, it's the sum of the three that is overwhelming. Besides that these three factors are not the only lines of evidence. Another one not mentioned is that we also know how much co2 humans emit into the atmosphere, and it's more than the total co2 accumulated in the atmosphere per year. Its all very interesting but one could also argue that all the people in the world each year flush more toilet water than what poured into New Orleans in 2005 so should be blame the New Orleans flood on people flushing their toilets into the ocean? If they flushed it all into New Orleans at same time then sure it would cause a flood. Equally humans emitting 30 billion tons of co2 per year into the atmosphere and atmospheric co2 is rising 15 billion tons per year. Without the human emission there would be a shortfall.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 22, 2010 1:41:48 GMT
This would assume no chemical reactions in the presence of acids in the ice cores. That assumes experts haven't validated the co2 ice core measurements and checked against such biases as contamination. Response 2-4 again: "According to IPCC (Jansen et al., 2007), “it is possible to derive time series of atmospheric trace gases and aerosols for the period from about 650 kyr [thousand years] to the present from air trapped in polar ice and from the ice itself.” This methodology has been “verified against recent (i.e., post-1950) measurements made by direct instrumental sampling.” Additionally, these measurements are consistent with various less accurate methods such as using the size of stomatal pores on tree leaves, boron isotope measurements in plankton buried under the ocean, or carbon isotope ratios in algae buried in the ocean floors, moss samples, and foraminefera carbonate shells. Therefore, there is extremely high confidence in the CO2 values determined from the ice core records, and we disagree that there is any evidence that water contamination or other manipulations reduce the confidence in the ice core estimates." The ice cores are used to determine the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. What the experts are saying is that they can take the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to work out how much carbon is absorbed in the upper ocean, which in turn will indicate the acidity. So yes they are saying that using chemistry they can calculate how much the co2 change in atmosphere will affect surface ocean pH. So what you are saying is if the historic estimate of atmospheric CO2 is wrong because of processes that diffuse bubbles out of the ice to match the lowest subsequent CO2 level all the science on historic atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidity just flies out the window! Thats a lot riding on an unvalidated proxy study. I suppose it would be pretty hard to devise an experiment with a lower level of CO2 in the test environment seeing as how it is so low already. 99.96% purity in anything is pretty hard to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 22, 2010 3:23:30 GMT
I agree, let us go back to what this thread originally was about. Your additional graph just underlines the complete match between temperature and CO2 growth rate. That there is a connection is not that surprising, but CO2’s nearly immediate respond is surprising I still wonder what the physical explanation may be. About the Svensmark effect. Manny has tried to falsify it but nobody has hitherto succeeded. CERN is for the time being running a project, to show if prof. Svensmarks theory of how clouds are formed is right. Just another graph giving CO2 temp trends for the last 1000 years from Lawdome. The CO2 variability is quite small, possibly to some degree because of the scaling on the vertical axis of the graph. However CO2 lagging temperature is evident again. We need to remember that these are Arctic temperatures as the temperature variability for the Antarctic for the same period is different, so some questions still remain unanswered. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 22, 2010 11:04:07 GMT
So what you are saying is if the historic estimate of atmospheric CO2 is wrong because of processes that diffuse bubbles out of the ice to match the lowest subsequent CO2 level all the science on historic atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidity just flies out the window! Thats a lot riding on an unvalidated proxy study. I think the ice core co2 data spanning hundreds of thousands of years is accurate enough. For example accurate enough to detect a 800 year lag for example. The diffusion of gas in ice looks like something that has been studied in detail by experts and is taken into account in order to get accurate measures of past co2. As Hans Oeschger says, in his letter to ESPR: "Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle." www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12and other points: "Another study of three much smaller Antarctic ice cores (2) shows the CO2 concentration for individual years over the last millennium (Fig 2). The core depths were 234 m, 243 m and 1200 m. The layers of the core were dated by counting the annual layers of oxygen ratio, ice electro-conductivity and hydrogen-peroxide concentration, and then the chronology was verified by detecting the acidic layers due to known volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1815, 1450 and 1255 AD. It appears that the air bubbles trapped in the ice represent the atmospheric composition at the time of snow deposition, in other words gas diffusion through the ice is negligible. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles dated to be from 1958 or later agrees very well with direct free-atmospheric CO2 measurements, which have been made since then. Note the slightly lower CO2 concentration between 1550 - 1800 AD, i.e. during the Little Ice Age. The considerable increase since 1830 was interrupted by a brief stabilisation during 1935 - 1945, probably as a consequence of some natural variation of the carbon cycle. The concentration had risen to 335 ppm by 1980. Another ice core, taken near MCMurdo Sound (on Taylor Dome) has confirmed the Law Dome temperature estimates. www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.htmlI am in little doubt that the co2 histories from ice cores are indeed valid representations of atmospheric co2 over the past million years, simply because if they weren't I would have expected such uncertainties to exist in the literature and scientists wouldn't regard the data as accurate enough to find lags of just 800 years!
|
|