|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 3, 2010 9:04:54 GMT
Well while I agree that its likely humans are causing the CO2 increases, I don't think we can say with certainty how that will work if there is cooling and/or an increase in convection/mixing within the oceans (cold AMO/PDO). It could be that while CO2 will still increase, the warm period simply represented a perfect storm of CO2 emissions plus warm period ocean stagnation plus general surface warming.
If ocean mixing increases significantly...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If the surface temperatures decrease...CO2 levels will rise more slowly.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 3, 2010 16:14:47 GMT
Icefisher There are apparently 2 views on this issue. The first is held by the world's scientists, both sceptical and pro-AGW, who are aware that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past is almost entirely due to the increase in fossil fuel burning over the past 150 years. Uh source on that claim please! The second view is held by posters on blogs such as this who don't understand that pumping 7 Gt C into the atmosphere will change the concentrations. Who said that. Certainly not I as all you have to do is read this thread and know that is a lie!
Strawman erections huh? Have to resort to that, pretty sad.They also fail to grasp that the isotope ratios tell us exactly what we already know is happening. Oh really? Isotope ratios tell us that 4% of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, yet CO2 has increased by 35%. So what is the source of the other 31%, where did it come from or where is it now if you think you know where it came from and if you think it is somewhere explain why it is going to come back and haunt us for a thousand years and what process it is going to follow to do that? Entertain us please!
They frequently cite Henry's Law but have no idea how to apply it and so cannot show us how much outgassing can be expected from a ~0.5 deg rise in the oceans. More strawmen. "They" whoever they are seem to be some strawman erection of yours to battle an imaginary enemy. Total outgassing from the oceans is not limited to CO2 already in a gas form and I don't know anybody who claimed that. . . .except apparently you.In some desperate attempt to rescue your argument, you quote my source as follows As the author of your reference points out: "These effects don't deserve to be discussed by anyone except for people who are scientifically interested in them and it is very irresponsible and dishonest to emit these statements - inpenetrable for most people - combined with irrational gloomy sentiments because such an explosive combination almost certainly leads laymen to completely incorrect conclusions"But my source is arguing against you. He is arguing against the 'outgassing' argument. He is making the point that the oceans are not at some tipping point where they can no longer absorb CO2. Motl is a sceptic. There are many, many sceptics who know that human emissions are responsible for at least 90% of the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. You remain impenetrable putting words in the mouth of your source.
Where was he arguing against the oceans as a huge source of CO2?
He was arguing against huge amounts of CO2 instantaneously outgassing from the oceans from CO2 dissolved and still in CO2 form in the ocean.
As we know CO2 enters the ocean and processes are there to convert it.
The ocean provides a huge reservoir of carbon in all sorts of forms, and some of it rots and outgasses and rotting and outgassing increases with temperature so you are mistaken in suggesting your source put a cap on CO2 outgassing from the ocean.
The only thing wrong is that you were too impenetrable to have limited your reply to the limited process he was discussing and instantly ran with it as evidence of the source of all increases in CO2, exactly what he was cautioning you about.
Where you need to get off the rush bus to AGW is the fact that accounting for a single process in natural systems never accounts for the entire process.
Nature just doesn't work that simply and you are too ignorant to know that responding as you do with simple-minded single process replies and misinterpreting scientific replies despite cautions against running with the information the scientist is providing you.
I mean this actually spells out the entire AGW disease, even scientists are not immune to running with a single fact towards abject stupidity.At the end of your post you make this statement I am sitting here making the claim that the science isn't settled and it rather clearly is not; yet you just spout some arcane physical fact as if there were no complexity in these processes and offer it as the end all be all solution.No - you are sitting there desperately grasping at straws trying to argue against an indisputable fact. The science might not be settled on AGW - particularly with respect to feedbacks - but the reasons for the increase in CO2 are well established. Established in your mind you mean.
Are you suggesting you believe the source you provided provides the entire answer? Thats plain stupid as one can see almost instantly a huge variable at least 8 times bigger the source you mentioned exists in the system. Do you think you can even point to it after having it pointed out to you? Ooops - nearly forgot the point about diffusion in ice cores that those who don't accept the human influence continually spout. Ice core data shows that, for thousands of years, CO2 levels have varied by just a few ppm - consistent with fluctuations ocean temperatures. The exceptions being the ice age periods when CO2 dropped by ~100 ppm - because there was a huge temperature change. All readings are consistent with known physics and chemistry. But that 's not good enough for the pseudo-blog-scientists. According to them diffusion is causing a significant loss of of CO2. BS! Diffusion rates of CO2 in ice are tiny. Every argument put forward on this issue can be thoroughly debunked. BS huh? I guess that really is the only verification of the claim you make the bleating of a guy that really has no evidence of what he is claiming.
LOL! We are regaled constantly by the AGW nutcases that we are experiencing unprecedented ice melting in Greenland, melting not seen for a million years. . . .I guess that in 500,000 years you expect somebody to pull and ice core and find a ice layer with 385parts per million CO2 in the melted ice huh?
I haven't picked apart an icecore study but I do know that if 90% of the warm layers melt you have a need for some very careful core sampling at very high sampling levels to develop confidence that you have not missed the warm periods altogether and my view is academic work tends to be sloppy and usually way under prepared with a gem of a paper sometimes emerging from a heap of trash.
I am not ruling out good work in this area just nobody has bothered to demonstrate it to me and with all the posing we see in this topic it needs to be demonstrated in full detail.
Actually I am not sure if gas migrates out of ice or if it does not over the millenia.
I also am not sure there are layers of ice laid down consistently enough to allow for a reliable accounting. I mean how does it get cold enough to lay down ice if CO2 is high and making it warmer with feedbacks making it even warmer?
Ah gee! why bother doing an accounting on that? The forensic accountants can come in and reconstruct things it doesn't matter than maybe entire millenia simply melted away and/or pooled with lower layers.
However out of the ice and into the dynamic world. . . . looking at the 4% we have identified as being anthropogenic in the atmosphere means that it has mixed into a pool of carbon which must be rotating in and out of the atmosphere with a large storage facility probably in the ocean. It goes into the storage pool as anthropogenic rich and comes out anthropogenic poor.
For your claim to be correct you have to assume no other process effects atmospheric CO2 to any extent, the role of the ice core work that virtually is not validated and probably much more suspect than tree rings.
What you are in essence claiming is that this storage facility is being spurred to emit more CO2 than normal to account for full 35% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere with only 4% identified as anthropogenic via isotope analysis.
OK so what makes the storage facility diffuse into the atmosphere? Obviously its not your source as he claims much less that the amount in the atmosphere being stored in the oceans as a gas.
Obviously there is another source of carbon that is accelerated by some process. The AGW crowd assumes this storage facility is static taking in anthropogenic carbon, mixing it with a pool of carbon 25 times greater and reemitting it as a diluted mixture of natural and anthropogenic carbon in order to maintain its natural "static" level.
Science cannot rule out the fluctuation of natural emissions of CO2 from the ocean with natural changes in temperature, though they try to do so with those carefully arranged layers of ice. LOL! A real stable medium to work in. ROTFLMAO!!
You could be right. But if you are right and you look for a process that can store, mix, and reemit carbon dioxide its life itself. Carbon enters the ocean and rather than respiration there is a process of production of calcites that become food sources, spurring life growth in the oceans, living, providing food to others, and then dying and emitting gases into the ocean which are gassed out into the atmosphere. There is also a healthy process of bleeding carbon out of the cycle and storing it in more stable rock formations, until of course some enterprising life form starts to mine it.
I am just saying you don't have a clue what is going on behind the screen nor do we have a good handle on natural variation, icecores not withstanding. You are making simple-minded conclusions about very complex processes.
The implications of increased biomasses in turn emitting more natural CO2 into the atmosphere is even a moral issue that has to be confronted. Reversing or ending that process could have human life implications never seen before on this planet. Understanding what role natural processes may have in this may well have been virtually erased from the icecore record or have been statistical nightmares to tease out of a lot of cold era data.
One would think there has to be more than one variable in this equation than mankind digging up carbon and burning it. Natural variation in the density of life forms can be seen each spring as the water warms and gets cloudy from all the growing life forms.
Bell clear water is viewed as pure but its actually a sign of problems for life forms. People like to drink clear cold water to avoid pathogens but making all our water clear and cold can have other implications like starvation.
And even if the ice core data is right and natural processes are well understood it doesn't mean we are right in being concerned about increasing life forms on the planet much less do we have enough information to determine if what is happening is a bad thing.
The problem with socialists is they want to do good but they are too stupid to do good. Do gooders are far better off just doing good than they are telling anybody else how to do good.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 3, 2010 20:25:30 GMT
Skepticalscience has a recent article about a paper, which has the following image that graphically shows the human perturbation of atmospheric co2 levels: www.skepticalscience.com/On-temperature-and-CO2-in-the-past.htmlIt also contains the following graph which shows historical co2 rise in response to warming. Quite clearly the recent 100ppm co2 rise is above and beyond what could be provided by warming alone:
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 3, 2010 22:49:03 GMT
Quite clearly the recent 100ppm co2 rise is above and beyond what could be provided by warming alone: Assuming of course that ice core rings which can melt away and are less stable than tree rings are more reliable than tree rings as a proxy.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 4, 2010 9:51:05 GMT
Well while I agree that its likely humans are causing the CO2 increases, I don't think we can say with certainty how that will work if there is cooling and/or an increase in convection/mixing within the oceans (cold AMO/PDO). It could be that while CO2 will still increase, the warm period simply represented a perfect storm of CO2 emissions plus warm period ocean stagnation plus general surface warming. If ocean mixing increases significantly...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If the surface temperatures decrease...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If ocean mixing increases significantly...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If the surface temperatures decrease...CO2 levels will rise more slowly.Absolutely. We see this all the time. When SST are low the year on year CO2 increase is lower. When SST are high the rate of CO2 increase is higher. If humans were not burning fossil fuels then CO2 levels would fluctuate about some equlibrium level which would depend on ocean temps (among other things). Because the oceans are bit warmer than they were 150 years ago, the equlibrium level might be nearer to 300 ppm than 285 ppm (the ~1850 level).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 4, 2010 10:19:59 GMT
Well while I agree that its likely humans are causing the CO2 increases, I don't think we can say with certainty how that will work if there is cooling and/or an increase in convection/mixing within the oceans (cold AMO/PDO). It could be that while CO2 will still increase, the warm period simply represented a perfect storm of CO2 emissions plus warm period ocean stagnation plus general surface warming. If ocean mixing increases significantly...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If the surface temperatures decrease...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If ocean mixing increases significantly...CO2 levels will rise more slowly. If the surface temperatures decrease...CO2 levels will rise more slowly.Absolutely. We see this all the time. When SST are low the year on year CO2 increase is lower. When SST are high the rate of CO2 increase is higher. If humans were not burning fossil fuels then CO2 levels would fluctuate about some equlibrium level which would depend on ocean temps (among other things). Because the oceans are bit warmer than they were 150 years ago, the equlibrium level might be nearer to 300 ppm than 285 ppm (the ~1850 level). Equilibrium? What do you know about that? Why does the history of the planet once have 10 times the CO2 and it was colder? Care to give a definition of the conditions of "equilibrium"? I would really like to know more about that which you are so informed on.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 5, 2010 8:34:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 5, 2010 18:58:05 GMT
I don't think his article answers many questions beyond explaining why scientists can track CO2 on the flanks of a volcano that emits CO2. I think he did a fair job regarding that but really didn't provide much support for the conclusion that the site is a good one. Obviously the volcano is a negative for the site selection and he argues that most of the air traveled half way across the Pacific so it must be representative of the global background CO2. However, it is known that on average the Pacific is more polluted from mercury than the Atlantic and this attributed to the huge increases in coal burning of eastern Asia. Bottom line is the Pacific is wide enough to substantially absorb more of it before it gets the Atlantic even with some US supplementation. One should look at this little Asia carbon tracker Flash movie at the following URL. I am not sure how to embed it here but its very interesting and then ask yourself if you know that Moana Loa is better for estimating global CO2 or increased emissions from Asia. . . .taking a page out of how we used to track Soviet nuclear air blasts by monitoring downwind radiation about the same distance away. www.nimr.go.kr/metri_home/english/Laboratory/carbontracker/index.htmlI didn't see any discussion at all in Willis' paper discussing this topic just offering up a half an ocean as adequate to provide representative air. I am not sure that is true, perhaps you can add to it.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 9, 2010 23:22:40 GMT
another study "A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around" "El Niño events have been recognized from at least 1902, so it would seem inappropriate to claim that they are caused by the increase of CO2. Given the very strong correlation between the temperature anomaly and the rate of increase of CO2, and the inability to justify an increase of CO2 causing El Niño, it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC. The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 10, 2010 9:37:33 GMT
another study "A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around" "El Niño events have been recognized from at least 1902, so it would seem inappropriate to claim that they are caused by the increase of CO2. Given the very strong correlation between the temperature anomaly and the rate of increase of CO2, and the inability to justify an increase of CO2 causing El Niño, it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC. The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/ A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around"I've seen this 'study' and despite some stiff competition recently this must rank as the worst post on WUWT ever. Anthony Watts is substituting quantity for quality. First, the model produced by the study doesn't show what is claimed. Let's look at the model. Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58) This says that the CO2 level at the current month is dependant on the CO2 level from the previous month and the temperature anomaly for the current month. Let's just rearrange the equation slightly Month(n) CO2 - Month(n-1) CO2 = 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58) It says much the same thing but this time on the LHS we have the monthly CO2 difference (i.e. current month - previous month). Now look at the RHS of the equation. Providing we have an anomaly which is greater than -0.58 (that's MINUS) CO2 will continue to rise. If a Dalton Minimum caused temperatures to drop by 1 deg for the next 20 years, CO2 levels would still be, at least, at the level they are to-day. In fact they would be higher. The 'researcher' models the difference in CO2 as a function of the temperature anomaly (not the anomaly difference) and so will, in effect, always have an increase no matter what happens to temperatures. If he'd modelled the anomaly difference it wouldn't have matched the observations - but that's because the CO2 increase is more dependant on the scale of human emissions than on temperature. As a reminder: the rate of rise of atmpospheric CO2 is moderated by temperature, i.e. when it's warmer the rise is greater than it's colder. But the rise is always there. CO2 levels don't fall. This paper stinks. It's actually worse than some of the Archibald rubbish but I notice it's produced by a Physics undergrad so Anthony needs to take a share of the blame. It's a huge embarrassment either way.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 10, 2010 9:40:52 GMT
another study "A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around" "El Niño events have been recognized from at least 1902, so it would seem inappropriate to claim that they are caused by the increase of CO2. Given the very strong correlation between the temperature anomaly and the rate of increase of CO2, and the inability to justify an increase of CO2 causing El Niño, it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC. The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/ A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around"I've seen this 'study' and despite some stiff competition recently this must rank as the worst post on WUWT ever. Anthony Watts is substituting quantity for quality. First, the 'model' produced by the study doesn't show what is claimed. Let's look at the model equation. Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58) This says that the CO2 level at the current month is dependant on the CO2 level from the previous month and the temperature anomaly for the current month. Let's just rearrange the equation slightly Month(n) CO2 - Month(n-1) CO2 = 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58) It says much the same thing but this time on the LHS we have the monthly CO2 difference (i.e. current month - previous month). Now look at the RHS of the equation. Providing we have an anomaly which is greater than -0.58 (that's MINUS) CO2 will continue to rise. Think about this for a moment. If a Dalton Minimum caused temperatures to drop by 1 deg for the next 20 years, CO2 levels would still be, at least, at the level they are to-day. In fact they would be higher. The 'researcher' models the difference in CO2 as a function of the temperature anomaly (not the anomaly difference) and so will, in effect, always have an increase no matter what happens to temperatures. If he'd modelled the anomaly difference it wouldn't have matched the observations - but that's because the CO2 increase is more dependant on the scale of human emissions than on temperature. As a reminder: the rate of rise of atmpospheric CO2 is moderated by temperature, i.e. when it's warmer the rise is greater than when it's colder. But the rise is always there. CO2 levels don't fall. This paper stinks. It's actually worse than some of the Archibald rubbish but I notice it's produced by a Physics undergrad so Anthony needs to take a share of the blame. It's a huge embarrassment either way.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2010 16:35:04 GMT
Now look at the RHS of the equation. Providing we have an anomaly which is greater than -0.58 (that's MINUS) CO2 will continue to rise. Think about this for a moment. If a Dalton Minimum caused temperatures to drop by 1 deg for the next 20 years, CO2 levels would still be, at least, at the level they are to-day. In fact they would be higher. It should be higher. CO2 should not stop increasing until the ocean is done mixing which is a process that goes on for a millenium or thereabouts. You know the "lag" where ocean CO2 emissions continue for 600 years beyond the point of where temperature changes direction? You seem to conveniently forget that fact and expect no lag at all despite all evidence suggesting there is a lag from temperature driven increases in CO2 and the lag is huge. In fact you use your ignorance of the lag as your primary argument. There may well be other arguments but your argument is rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 10, 2010 17:17:35 GMT
It should be higher.
CO2 should not stop increasing until the ocean is done mixing which is a process that goes on for a millenium or thereabouts. You know the "lag" where ocean CO2 emissions continue for 600 years beyond the point of where temperature changes direction?
You don't really understand this do you. This so-called model is looking at short term variation (no lage are involved). Apparently according to the model equation the change in CO2 from the previous month to the current month is a function of the tmep anaomaly for the current month.
Let me express it mathemetically
CO2n - CO2n-1 = 0.22(Tn + 0.58)
The model claims CO2 will respond immeditely - not in 6 months - 6 years - or 600 years. I sort of agree with this. However the equation makes no sense if the claim is that CO2 is temperature dependant.
You seem to conveniently forget that fact and expect no lag at all despite all evidence suggesting there is a lag from temperature driven increases in CO2 and the lag is huge.
The lag is not huge. We see CO2 fluctuations IMMEDIATELY. How come there isn't a lag when the oceans are warming. How come the temepratures are rising and CO2 is rising AT THE SAME TIME.
In fact you use your ignorance of the lag as your primary argument.
You are confusing thermal lag with the response to CO2. It's not the same thing. If the oceans are warm they will absorb less s and 'outgas' more. That's why the rise is more in El Nino years than in La Nina years.
There may well be other arguments but your argument is rubbish.
Tell me why CO2 rose more in 1998 than it did in, say, 1999.
Though this has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called study which has produced a model to predict the month to month CO2 rise. If this model were to run for a thousand years with a temperature anomaly of -0.5 say , CO2 would be higher than at the start of the run. Your clueless comment is, therefore, irrelevant.
It's funny how my arguments are rubbish yet I've been quoted in posts by Steve McIntyre on at least a couple of occasions.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 10, 2010 21:41:20 GMT
It should be higher.
CO2 should not stop increasing until the ocean is done mixing which is a process that goes on for a millenium or thereabouts. You know the "lag" where ocean CO2 emissions continue for 600 years beyond the point of where temperature changes direction? You don't really understand this do you. This so-called model is looking at short term variation (no lage are involved). Apparently according to the model equation the change in CO2 from the previous month to the current month is a function of the tmep anaomaly for the current month. Let me express it mathemetically CO2 n - CO2 n-1 = 0.22(T n + 0.58) The model claims CO2 will respond immediately - not in 6 months - 6 years - or 600 years. I sort of agree with this. However the equation makes no sense if the claim is that CO2 is temperature dependant. You squawk about how if it gets a degree colder CO2 will still be increasing. Yet we know it does for ~600 years after it starts cooling. So I don't know what your problem is with a derivative calculation that gives an instantaneous change. His model clearly does not model the entire carbon cycle but instead acknowledges that the ocean takes more than 250 years to realize 63% of climate change. That breaks down to a lot of cold water to exchange water that may never warm and a big carbon exchange rate that only slows down after a long period of time the residual of which is apparent in the atmosphere for a long time. All that is being pointed out here is how the carbon in the atmosphere fluctuates instantaneously with temperature. According to his assumptions it would require 263 years of a steady atmospheric temperature for the ocean to 63% equalize at that level. In other words if the temp dropped next month to a -.58 anomaly and stayed there CO2 would flatline in the atmosphere and stay there according to the model. Thats obviously wrong. But how wrong is it? Considering a hugely slow ocean exchange rate and possibly a 1000 year thermohaline circulation pattern the ocean very likely was not at equilibrium at any particular point in time and the thousand year process simply cannot be modeled on what records we have. This 50 year CO2 record we do have is only 2% of the entire cycle so even if we did model it you couldn't see the effect of it in the graphs making your criticisms nothing more than hair splitting and in essence a criticism this guy doesn't know everything. Like no kidding! Nobody know everything. But of course the AGW folks they know everything. They have done that using icecores with unvalidated CO2 assumptions of paleoatmospheres and assumed accompanying temperatures and assumed exchange rates with the deep ocean. . . . all of which is sorely lacking in support. Except it isn't working. Heat is missing. We have AGW advocates claiming heat is transporting where our modeler is claiming the CO2 is going but heat has no mechanism to get it there as heat is opposite of cold and cold is what sinks into the ocean in the thermohaline process. No this model does not explain everything but it is nicely consistent with a lot of stuff up to and possibly including why only 3 to 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. But the AGW folks don't model the carbon cycle because they don't know it either. The thermohaline circulation probably accounts for the 600 year delay but probably does not add up to the only element of the carbon cycle.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 10, 2010 22:33:36 GMT
I ran this query years ago: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12It doesn't mean what is reported on WUWT. On that I agree with glc, it does perhaps rank as the worst post on WUWT ever. At least if you reflect that the amateurness is wrapped in pompous pretending to be "researchers" writing a paper when all they've done is take the derivative of mauna loa data and scale it.
|
|