|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 23, 2009 3:52:38 GMT
socold From your mauna low link Rate of CO2 increase in PPM 1999 0.94 2000 1.74 2001 1.59 2002 2.56 2003 2.29 2004 1.56 2005 2.55 2006 1.69 2007 2.17 2008 1.66 I make the last available year the fourth lowest in the last decade, seems to be flattening a bit to me. I never said it was going down. Doesn't look that way to me www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999/trendThe oceans are removing more co2 from the atmosphere than they used to. Emissions have increased but absorption has increased more, so net result is the oceans are not contributing to the co2 rise in the atmosphere, they are limiting it. Ok......now we are back to baseline co2. I am concerned with the co2 that is attributed to fossil fuel burning only. It does look like Wylie presented very valid data which indicates that the co2 load from fossil fuel is not that significant verses other loads. Would all agree that his findings about fossil fuel co2 are correct, except for dated a bit? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 23, 2009 7:42:42 GMT
Yes that's true but this exchange is not fixed and if you raise the temperature of the ocean (without using your CO2 model), this balance shifts and the oceans absorb less CO2 than they were before. All of the extra CO2 emitted by the oceans is now lumped together and called man made emissions.
There's a lot made of this warmer ocean stuff but the change in ocean temperatures is nowhere near enough to account for the increase in CO2 concentrations. During the last ice age temperatures were at least 5 deg lower than now. CO2 was 180ppm - or about 100ppm below the pre-industrial average. To-day temperatures are ~0.5 deg above what they were 50 years ago implying that CO2 levels should be ~10ppm above 1959 levels. Actual readings are ~70ppm above 1959 levels.
Hans Erren has done a simple regression using vostock ice core data and finds a 10ppm increase in CO2 for each 1 deg increase in temperature.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 23, 2009 8:03:36 GMT
It does look like Wylie presented very valid data which indicates that the co2 load from fossil fuel is not that significant verses other loads. Define "significant". The seasonal cycle of CO2 in the northern hemisphere shows a variation of 3 or 4 times the net annual increase of CO2. To estimate CO2 this winter based on CO2 data from this summer, then, fossil fuel CO2 is less significant. To estimate CO2 in summer 2020 fossil fuel CO2 is more significant. IIRC net CO2 from fossil fuels is believed to be 5 or 6 times net CO2 from changes in land use. So land use changes should not be ignored. The following agrees with a back of the envelope calculation I did myself a couple of years ago which was based on oil and coal use statistics obtained from various industry websites, so looks reasonable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 23, 2009 16:00:09 GMT
It really just depends whether you believe that (all) the warming since the 70's was caused by CO2. If you believe this and the hockey stick etc. then the model says it's 14% so there you go.
If you believe that we are just in a natural 30 year climate cycle and a trace gas such as CO2 has a negligible effect on temperatures then mans emissions work out closer to 3% (of the 3% greenhouse gases which are CO2, 97% are water vapour etc.). I think most of us have already decided which side we believe and most of us will not switch sides so just pick a number and be happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 23, 2009 18:04:50 GMT
The vast bulk (90% at least) of the rise in co2 is attributable to human emissions. That's irregardless of how much warming there's been.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 23, 2009 21:27:37 GMT
The vast bulk (90% at least) of the rise in co2 is attributable to human emissions. That's irregardless of how much warming there's been. We probably are responsible for most of the rise. Oh, and seriously..."irregardless"  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 23, 2009 21:34:59 GMT
We are responsible for most of the rise.
There's no point attaching any caveats or the like to this subject as it's that certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 24, 2009 1:31:21 GMT
We are responsible for most of the rise. There's no point attaching any caveats or the like to this subject as it's that certain. Socold: You have not posted anything to do with the fossil fuel contribution to co2. You have disputed it, but not offered any other credible source to dispute Wylie's numbers. I am interested in this, and would like to see your numbers if you would? |
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Jul 24, 2009 4:58:59 GMT
CO2 absorption by the Oceans (even with increasing temperature)
It is certainly reasonable to expect that at roughly constant CO2 concentration that an increase in Ocean temperature would outgas to restore the balance between the two. HOWEVER, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by at least 25-30% in the last 100 years. I believe that a substantial fraction of that increase is due to human induced processes like combustion and forest clearing.
The key question is: "What happens to the ability of the Oceans to absorb CO2 when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases??" Charle's partial pressure gas law would suggest that the "ocean sink" for CO2 would increase at the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased. After all, the amount of CO2 in the oceans is MUCH greater than the entire amount in the atmosphere AND the concentration of CO2 in the ocean is NOWHERE near the solubility limit. That means that the Ocean sink for CO2 will improve as the concnetration in the atmosphere rises. I.e. the "carbon sinks" (far from being depleted by increasing CO2) will very likely IMPROVE as the concentration of CO2 increases!!
Even IF you believe the AGW statements about the atmospheric temperature increasing as a result of CO2 increases, it is obvious that the deep oceans (where the greatest concentration of CO2 can be stored) is NOWHERE near being "filled up". ALSO, it takes on average 800-1000 years for Oceans to warm up. That means as the CO2 concentration i nthe atmosphere increases, the "carbon sink" of the ocean will increase for a long long time (a lot longer than any of us alive will ever see- and even our Grandchildren).
There are LOTS of counter-acting effects on this wonderful planet of ours!!
Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 24, 2009 8:54:01 GMT
socold.
We are responsible for most of the rise.
There's no point attaching any caveats or the like to this subject as it's that certain.
Oh well, if the science is settled, it must be right. Lets stick with the ippc scientific approach. [/sarc]
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 24, 2009 9:42:38 GMT
We are responsible for most of the rise. There's no point attaching any caveats or the like to this subject as it's that certain. Socold: You have not posted anything to do with the fossil fuel contribution to co2. You have disputed it, but not offered any other credible source to dispute Wylie's numbers. I am interested in this, and would like to see your numbers if you would? Bit confused. I don't think socold *is* disputing Wylie's numbers. Preindustrial CO2 was approx 280. Current CO2 is approx 390. Emissions of CO2 by man (due to fossil fuel burning and land use changes - which is a PC way of saying "cutting down forests") are enough to account for twice the observed increase. Natural sources and sinks (other than the ocean) of CO2 have not noticeably changed by a significant amount as compared with fossil fuel emission rates since 1750. Sigurdur, perhaps you could clarify where you think Wylie's figures disagree. There is a separate question about the ongoing effectiveness of the ocean sink. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 24, 2009 11:56:47 GMT
Steve:
With the legislation being proposed around a fossil fuel tax, I am trying to ascertain what fossil fuel burning adds to the co2 load. I am not concerned about land use changes etc in this as the legislation does not address this.
I understand the 100ppm rise in co2, and I also understand the ocean sink discussion.
Since no one has disputed the small percentage that fossil fuels add to co2, I will assume Wylie's figures are correct. With that being said, it would also appear that taxing fossil fuels is not where the discussion should be. The additional load from fossil fuels is small, and always blaming fossil fuels for the co2 is diverting the discussion away from more primary sources of co2.
It seems to me that most people, from a gut feeling, understand that fossil fuel burning is not the "culprit" per se. That would explain why there is so much confusion as they are seemingly correct, yet the likes of James Hansen etal blame only fossil fuels publicly. Ya see, there seems to be a skunk in the kitchen here.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 24, 2009 12:12:46 GMT
Steve: With the legislation being proposed around a fossil fuel tax, I am trying to ascertain what fossil fuel burning adds to the co2 load. I am not concerned about land use changes etc in this as the legislation does not address this. I understand the 100ppm rise in co2, and I also understand the ocean sink discussion. Since no one has disputed the small percentage that fossil fuels add to co2, I will assume Wylie's figures are correct. With that being said, it would also appear that taxing fossil fuels is not where the discussion should be. The additional load from fossil fuels is small, and always blaming fossil fuels for the co2 is diverting the discussion away from more primary sources of co2. It seems to me that most people, from a gut feeling, understand that fossil fuel burning is not the "culprit" per se. That would explain why there is so much confusion as they are seemingly correct, yet the likes of James Hansen etal blame only fossil fuels publicly. Ya see, there seems to be a skunk in the kitchen here. I'll assume you have read the legislation, so that being the case you likely know that it has very little to do with "controlling co2" and everything to do with controlling people. It is yet another milestone on the road to tyranny. Recall the people who have been put in positions of power by this President - John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, among others. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 24, 2009 13:54:01 GMT
Since no one has disputed the small percentage that fossil fuels add to co2, I will assume Wylie's figures are correct. With that being said, it would also appear that taxing fossil fuels is not where the discussion should be. The additional load from fossil fuels is small, and always blaming fossil fuels for the co2 is diverting the discussion away from more primary sources of co2. From the figures Wylie linked, about 60% of the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuels. Why you are saying it is a "small percentage"? Fossil fuels alone aren't blamed. There is also a lot of effort trying to reduce deforestation. In addition, there is concern about many other greenhouse gases (methane, NOx, CFCs, HFCs and many other chemicals). |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 24, 2009 15:55:10 GMT
Steve: With the legislation being proposed around a fossil fuel tax, I am trying to ascertain what fossil fuel burning adds to the co2 load. I am not concerned about land use changes etc in this as the legislation does not address this. I understand the 100ppm rise in co2, and I also understand the ocean sink discussion. Since no one has disputed the small percentage that fossil fuels add to co2, I will assume Wylie's figures are correct. With that being said, it would also appear that taxing fossil fuels is not where the discussion should be. The additional load from fossil fuels is small, and always blaming fossil fuels for the co2 is diverting the discussion away from more primary sources of co2. It seems to me that most people, from a gut feeling, understand that fossil fuel burning is not the "culprit" per se. That would explain why there is so much confusion as they are seemingly correct, yet the likes of James Hansen etal blame only fossil fuels publicly. Ya see, there seems to be a skunk in the kitchen here. I'll assume you have read the legislation, so that being the case you likely know that it has very little to do with "controlling co2" and everything to do with controlling people. It is yet another milestone on the road to tyranny. Recall the people who have been put in positions of power by this President - John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, among others. Yes, I am plodding through the bill passed by the US House. Seems to be alll about taxation and trading with, as you so well put it, nadda to do with reduceing co2 emissions. A sham of high order. |
|
