|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2014 17:08:14 GMT
DRK: The 1st 5,000' of the atmosphere holds 17% of the atmospheric weight. The 1st 10,000' holds 30% of the atmospheric weight. Hence, the 1st 10'000 feet holds 30% of CO2 by weight, as the correct expression is ppmv. www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/met/atmos_wt.htmThe only place that CO2 exhibits any detectible radiation function, in regards to temperature, is higher than 55,000ft, because H20 vapor trumps the bandwidth of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2014 17:11:36 GMT
CO2 in the troposphere is not well mixed, as there are large variations of CO2 in that layer of the atmosphere. CO2 becomes well mixed in the Strat and above.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2014 16:23:59 GMT
"Using the estimated 7 years for the average time a CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before being reabsorbed by the surface " Sorry wrong: "The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That is an oxymoron of an answer. Obviously its stupid to call somebody wrong when admitting such uncertainty. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years." (source The Guardian) The problem here is the difference between "turnover time" and "residency time". The turnover time is quite short and is defined as the ratio of the size of the atmospheric reservoir compared to the rate of absorption. If you do that sum the turnover time is 5-7 years. Obviously you misunderstood my claim as here you agree with it. 7 years is in fact the high end of the range of how long an average CO2 molecule remains in the atmosphere. Odd that you would call it wrong then turn right around and admit its true. But that is not what causes global warming, it is how long the excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere. At the moment we are adding 12 GT per year to the atmosphere. So how long will it take for the current excess of about 120 ppm to be absorbed by the land and the ocean (assuming we stop adding to it)? The answer to that is 200 to 2000 years depending on which processes dominate. The thing that is slowing the absorption of the CO2 is transport of the dissolved CO2 into the deep ocean. [/quote] Its not how long it remains in the atmosphere. We already settled that issue. Its how it may or may not indirectly contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere based upon the theory that the CO2 from fossil fuel burning raises the saturation level of the surface ocean contributing to a higher concentration in the atmosphere. A theory of limited ability for the environment to process the excess carbon dioxide (a theory as far as I can see without scientific basis) of how CO2 from fossil fuel burning forces CO2 from other sources out of the ocean on a theory of limited capacity to hold CO2 in the ocean. But this is not anything I addressed in my post. Obviously increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere needs to come from somewhere and fossil fuel burning makes for a great dog to kick. But thats where speculation begins to inflate. The only reason that the atmosphere does not have 500ppm in it right now is because the top layers of the ocean are not saturated. Natural processes like precipitation runoff and biological absorption keeps the atmospheric concentration low by keeping the surface ocean concentration low. Variation is further introduced via upwelling rates of deeper waters with higher concentrations of CO2 that in fact dramatically spur biological activity by infusing carbon which otherwise is short supply into surface waters. Climate science is full of BS. This is where they introduce the concept of pH changing in the ocean. Has anybody actually read this study? I didn't think so. If we conducted a study of CO2 in the atmosphere using the same standards (namely 300 year old measurements made by 18th century scientists) one would begin to believe that CO2 is lower in the atmosphere today than 300 years ago. . . .a notion that science has discarded in favor of measuring CO2 locked into air bubbles in glacial ice. What we do not understand is how variation in these processes operate over time. Science is 90% bullshitt on this with assumptions that its settled science that air bubbles in glacial ice is a reliable indicator of low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over millenia, a proxy that completely lacks experimental proof or any kind of ground truthing as to its reliability and the ability of ice to sequester carbon dioxide over millenia. What we do know with a high degree of certainty is how much carbon is in the atmosphere today that came directly from fossil fuel burning and its a very low percentage and that was the only point I was making. Its a difficult point for CAGW advocates to swallow because then they have to actually start explaining stuff they are not at all capable of explaining.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 3, 2014 17:09:35 GMT
drkstrong wrote: "The oceans cannot be "outgassing" to cause the trend as they are absorbing more CO2 then they release at the moment that is why the pH of the oceans is decreasing (i.e., acidifying)."New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmospherehockeyschtick.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/new-paper-finds-oceans-are-net-source.html A new paper published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles proposes large revisions to the ocean carbon cycle based upon observations and models, finding the global oceans act as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere. … The authors find middle-layer carbon flux toward the ocean surface exceeds flux to the ocean depths ["subduction"] by 11 Petagrams of carbon per year, which by comparison is significantly more carbon than generated by all man-made activities [8.8 Petagrams of carbon per year]. In other words, the deep oceans naturally contribute more carbon to the middle ocean layers [between 25-150 meters deep] than produced by all of man's activities combined. Thank you. This was obvious from the Japanese satellite sensors showing that CO2 did not appear to be coming from the North American continent - which appears to be a net absorber but was coming from the oceans.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 3, 2014 17:15:41 GMT
"This shows the variance in absorption over a year is more than all sources of CO2 outputs the PPM drops. There is a background increase which is more than human caused emissions, and is due to outgassing from the oceans due Henry's Law. As the oceans cool the rate of rise of CO2 will eventually reduce." The variation you see here is the planet breathing - as the northern hemisphere has more land than the south so there are more plants and animals to absorb CO2 during the N. summer months so the global level of CO2 drops. As they die and return CO2 to the atmosphere the level goes back up. The overall trend is the additional CO2 we are adding. The oceans cannot be "outgassing" to cause the trend as they are absorbing more CO2 then they release at the moment that is why the pH of the oceans is decreasing (i.e., acidifying). I think you need to look up and try to understand Henry's law (and not the interpretation of it in WUWT or the like). It states that the amount of gas absorbed in a liquid IN EQUALIBRIUM and AT CONSTANT TEMPARTURE is proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above that liquid. I.e. the more say CO2 above the oceans the more they will absorb at a given temperature. But neither of those provisos are true. The oceans are not in equilibrium nor are they at constant temperature. They would only out gas (and not because of Henry's law) if the water is saturated with dissolved CO2 and then temperature goes up. The oceans are nowhere near saturated with CO2. The planet breathing (as you call it) shows that its uptake of CO2 is more than the output of CO2 QED. The absorption is not some kind of set in stone constant there is huge variability. Yes Henry's Law shows that if you VARY the temperature so it is NOT constant the amount of gas absorbed will alter and the amount leaving the liquid will also alter. QED. So as the oceans warm they outgas CO2. Here is a simple experiment for you. Get 2 identical bottles of beer and remove the tops. Now stand one in a warm oven at say 50C and the other stand in a refrigerator at 1C. After 30 minutes the beer in the oven will be warm and flat with all the CO2 outgassed the beer in the fridge will still have its fizz.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 3, 2014 19:58:19 GMT
drkstrong wrote: "The oceans cannot be "outgassing" to cause the trend as they are absorbing more CO2 then they release at the moment that is why the pH of the oceans is decreasing (i.e., acidifying)."New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmospherehockeyschtick.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/new-paper-finds-oceans-are-net-source.html A new paper published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles proposes large revisions to the ocean carbon cycle based upon observations and models, finding the global oceans act as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere. … The authors find middle-layer carbon flux toward the ocean surface exceeds flux to the ocean depths ["subduction"] by 11 Petagrams of carbon per year, which by comparison is significantly more carbon than generated by all man-made activities [8.8 Petagrams of carbon per year]. In other words, the deep oceans naturally contribute more carbon to the middle ocean layers [between 25-150 meters deep] than produced by all of man's activities combined. People think I'm nuts when I tell them the oceans are the biggest source of CO2. A few will admit they are the largest source but still maintain the are a NET sink thus the increase is from humans.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 5, 2014 12:16:17 GMT
drkstrong wrote: "The oceans cannot be "outgassing" to cause the trend as they are absorbing more CO2 then they release at the moment that is why the pH of the oceans is decreasing (i.e., acidifying)."New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmospherehockeyschtick.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/new-paper-finds-oceans-are-net-source.html A new paper published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles proposes large revisions to the ocean carbon cycle based upon observations and models, finding the global oceans act as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere. … The authors find middle-layer carbon flux toward the ocean surface exceeds flux to the ocean depths ["subduction"] by 11 Petagrams of carbon per year, which by comparison is significantly more carbon than generated by all man-made activities [8.8 Petagrams of carbon per year]. In other words, the deep oceans naturally contribute more carbon to the middle ocean layers [between 25-150 meters deep] than produced by all of man's activities combined. People think I'm nuts when I tell them the oceans are the biggest source of CO2. A few will admit they are the largest source but still maintain the are a NET sink thus the increase is from humans. I don't think people are able to grasp the immensity of the figures nature is capable of. Literally thousands of previously uncharted volcanoes have been found on the ocean floor, all of these will be emitting CO2 and nobody knew about them or factored them into calculations and guess what their CO2 has the same isotopic signature as CO2 from burning 'fossil' fuels. The energy in nature dwarfs anything that mankind can do, a single hurricane in a day uses energy that is the equivalent of 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity in just the energy released in rain and cloud formation. Look at those figures again and the standard large low pressure cyclone covering several thousand miles is of the same order of magnitude. Mankind is puny in comparison to nature, there is some effect but a percent more diatoms in the ocean and the CO2 from man will be consumed. The biosphere is short of CO2, we are on the edge of plants dying. It has been far higher in the past with zero effect on global temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 5, 2014 14:42:14 GMT
People think I'm nuts when I tell them the oceans are the biggest source of CO2. A few will admit they are the largest source but still maintain the are a NET sink thus the increase is from humans. I don't think people are able to grasp the immensity of the figures nature is capable of. Literally thousands of previously uncharted volcanoes have been found on the ocean floor, all of these will be emitting CO2 and nobody knew about them or factored them into calculations and guess what their CO2 has the same isotopic signature as CO2 from burning 'fossil' fuels. The energy in nature dwarfs anything that mankind can do, a single hurricane in a day uses energy that is the equivalent of 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity in just the energy released in rain and cloud formation. Look at those figures again and the standard large low pressure cyclone covering several thousand miles is of the same order of magnitude. Mankind is puny in comparison to nature, there is some effect but a percent more diatoms in the ocean and the CO2 from man will be consumed. The biosphere is short of CO2, we are on the edge of plants dying. It has been far higher in the past with zero effect on global temperatures. yes, I think we should be increasing CO2.
|
|