|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 18, 2009 20:00:43 GMT
Nautonnier, yes we all know that fossil fuel emissions are a tiny fraction of all emissions. It's just that "all emissions" tend to be balanced by "all absorption" whereas fossil fuel emissions have nothing much to balance them with. So there is not necessarily a prospect of seeing a big red fossil fuel blob over USA, China and Western Europe. If the OCO mission hadn't ended up in the southern ocean then you would have had a better chance of seeing surface sources, because that was what OCO was designed to do. If CO2 subsides so quickly then why has the trend been remorselessly up by 1-2ppm per year for the last 60 years. Surely if that graph you showed was a good reflection of global CO2 levels you'd see more similar sorts of variability in the more precise measurements that have been taken recently. That's just monstrously stupid. There is no "group" in charge of world CO2 measurements. You can measure CO2 levels with handheld equipment now. What chance has a world conspiracy against that!? Sometimes you really should think a bit more before coming out with these bland "they're all lying to us" mantras. Anyway, it's beer O'clock in the UK now, so I'll leave you to your witterings. Steve every now and then you appear to be logically challenged. "Nautonnier, yes we all know that fossil fuel emissions are a tiny fraction of all emissions. It's just that "all emissions" tend to be balanced by "all absorption" whereas fossil fuel emissions have nothing much to balance them with. So there is not necessarily a prospect of seeing a big red fossil fuel blob over USA, China and Western Europe. "You have made an assumption that absorption is linear and is in some kind of balance with CO 2 and if a little more is added it will not/cannot be absorbed. This assumption is not safe. Perhaps there is a vapor pressure that the system tends toward, and if there is more CO 2 the rate of absorption increases. <<Shrug>> I do not know - what the moving graphics that you showed appeared to demonstrate was that a large northern Hemisphere overload of CO 2 could rapidly be absorbed. That cannot be explained in your simple linear model. I would also point out - as I did in my post - that you can actually see a 'big red blob' of CO 2 and it is NOT over industry it is over open country. But as it does not reinforce your argument - you are uninterested. "If CO2 subsides so quickly then why has the trend been remorselessly up by 1-2ppm per year for the last 60 years. Surely if that graph you showed was a good reflection of global CO2 levels you'd see more similar sorts of variability in the more precise measurements that have been taken recently."Just a supposition but from paleo records we see that CO 2 rises around eight centuries after temperatures rise. It would appear that what we are seeing in this monotonic rise in measured CO 2 is the ocean releasing CO 2 as it warms. Perhaps the vapor pressure balance again? That would fit with the satellite imagery showing high levels of CO2 over the warm oceans and low levels at the poles. It should also mean that the rate of rise may start to decline if the oceans cool and absorb more CO 2. "That's just monstrously stupid. There is no "group" in charge of world CO2 measurements. You can measure CO2 levels with handheld equipment now. What chance has a world conspiracy against that!? Sometimes you really should think a bit more before coming out with these bland "they're all lying to us" mantras."Strange - when I pointed out that people had measured CO 2 before your claim was how inferior these people were carrying out local measures than the real professionals on a Hawaiian volcano or at the arctic circle. Now you say I should go back and use a handheld system so that you and glc can say how 'monstrously stupid' that is? It is also now public record that the 'official' metrics for climate have been tampered with and carefully chosen to obtain and support a particular result. I think considering the costs worldwide to industries and individuals of the political decisions being made based on these 'fudged' metrics, that a requirement for publicly available, auditable and independent metrics generated by people whose livelihood depends on their accuracy not their meaning, is not one to be denied.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Dec 18, 2009 20:47:30 GMT
Yes choose Mauna Loa next to a volcano that emits CO2 so needs to have its readings adjusted DOWN to make up for the local CO2; and Barrow in Alaska which you will see from the NOAA satellites is under a polar air mass that is extremely LOW in CO2 already. This has all the careful siting of the USHCN and no doubt as many adjustments. Sheeesh! Why don't you take your pick from the list of 10 sites here . cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htmFrom what I can see they're all within about 5 ppm of each other. Some are not quite as up to date as others, but I think all of them have data up to 2006, at least.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 18, 2009 21:51:23 GMT
Sheeesh! Why don't you take your pick from the list of 10 sites here . Perhaps you should first list their funding sources. Are any of them "NOT" funded from the same sources as CRU?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 18, 2009 21:59:13 GMT
Yes choose Mauna Loa next to a volcano that emits CO2 so needs to have its readings adjusted DOWN to make up for the local CO2; and Barrow in Alaska which you will see from the NOAA satellites is under a polar air mass that is extremely LOW in CO2 already. This has all the careful siting of the USHCN and no doubt as many adjustments. Sheeesh! Why don't you take your pick from the list of 10 sites here . cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htmFrom what I can see they're all within about 5 ppm of each other. Some are not quite as up to date as others, but I think all of them have data up to 2006, at least. I am told that the tree ring temperature data matched perfectly with the modern temperatures as well - the graphs in the IPCC report, by all those Nobel prize winners showed that perfect match. They should all be congratulated on their clever trick 'science'. Surprisingly the ice core CO 2 data also seamlessly matched into the 10 combined worldwide sensor sites _perfect match_ too!! All that despite being in an area where the CO 2 is shown to be significantly lower than the rest of the atmosphere by NOAA satellites - its amazing what modern ' science' can do isn't it. So you expect me to be bowled over by a close match between sensors? Although I really should considering the graphics being shown by NOAA Looking at that the separation between Barrow and Mauna Loa closer to 10ppm apart? Ohhh no sorry, that's before application of the correction algorithms? Say no more
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Dec 19, 2009 2:45:05 GMT
Starter Questions: What mechanism outside of anthro-sources can attribute the rise in CO2 reported consistently? What can cause the cyclical nature of CO2 as cliamed in the graphs? My take after studying this stuff for the past two years is that the CO2 driver is temperature. The rises in temps are caused by many factors. However, I have no answer for how CO2 levels appear to have been 5 times or more higher during past ice ages.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Dec 19, 2009 11:18:20 GMT
Starter Questions: What mechanism outside of anthro-sources can attribute the rise in CO2 reported consistently? What can cause the cyclical nature of CO2 as cliamed in the graphs? My take after studying this stuff for the past two years is that the CO2 driver is temperature. The rises in temps are caused by many factors. However, I have no answer for how CO2 levels appear to have been 5 times or more higher during past ice ages. I am not sure but seems logical to me that during ice ages there is less CO2 sinked in oceans. CO2 was accumulated because of natural sources ( volcanoes, animals...). During period of "ice/snow ball Earth" there was up to 13% CO2 in the atmosfere. No sinking oceans, just ice....
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Dec 19, 2009 15:51:31 GMT
My take after studying this stuff for the past two years is that the CO2 driver is temperature. The rises in temps are caused by many factors. However, I have no answer for how CO2 levels appear to have been 5 times or more higher during past ice ages. I am not sure but seems logical to me that during ice ages there is less CO2 sinked in oceans. CO2 was accumulated because of natural sources ( volcanoes, animals...). During period of "ice/snow ball Earth" there was up to 13% CO2 in the atmosfere. No sinking oceans, just ice.... Good start, then the only explanation for today's CO2 ppm by that would that in fact CO2 has been mismeasured. If that is case, then where did the industrial CO2 go?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 19, 2009 17:15:20 GMT
I am not sure but seems logical to me that during ice ages there is less CO2 sinked in oceans. CO2 was accumulated because of natural sources ( volcanoes, animals...). During period of "ice/snow ball Earth" there was up to 13% CO2 in the atmosfere. No sinking oceans, just ice.... Good start, then the only explanation for today's CO2 ppm by that would that in fact CO2 has been mismeasured. If that is case, then where did the industrial CO2 go? I am reminded of another Douglas Adams quote: "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."We might think that the amount of CO 2 given off by human activity is large - but in comparison to natural sources and variations it is small - in this or other threads it is assessed at ~5% or less of atmospheric CO 2Now my understanding of the solubility of gases in water is that: 1. Solubility decreases as temperature rises and 2. Henry's law states that : at constant temperature the mass of a gas dissolved in a given volume of the liquid is directly proportional to the pressure of the gas present in equilibrium with the liquid.From this we get that for any temperature as the amount of gas in the atmosphere rises more gas dissolves. This could easily account for the very small percentage of CO 2 from anthropogenic sources. It seems to be borne out too by the graphics earlier in this thread that show: * lower CO2 concentration at the poles and * rapid reductions in larger amounts of CO 2Once again the oceans and water are the system in the background that stabilizes things. More CO 2 == higher CO 2 solubility. At the same time as ocean temperatures rise - as they have done until recent years - CO 2 solubility drops and it 'out-gases' and atmospheric CO 2 rises until the level meets the Henry's law partial pressure balance. This is complicated by the greater solubility at the poles where water is cold compared to the equator where water is warm. Thus the various convective circulations will move heat and out-gased CO 2 to the poles where it will dissolve back into the water The world does not behave in a linear fashion. I am sure that there are physical chemists here who will be able to confirm this.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 19, 2009 18:17:25 GMT
Pardon the interruption, but are we supposed to take this seriously?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 19, 2009 18:59:08 GMT
Pardon the interruption, but are we supposed to take this seriously? The data has been changed again? Nope....not seriously at all I see.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 19, 2009 19:50:30 GMT
Pardon the interruption, but are we supposed to take this seriously? Given the information about the Darwin temperature measures - nothing would surprise me now. 'The team' make Enron look like trappist monks.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 19, 2009 20:25:47 GMT
Good start, then the only explanation for today's CO2 ppm by that would that in fact CO2 has been mismeasured. If that is case, then where did the industrial CO2 go? I am reminded of another Douglas Adams quote: "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."We might think that the amount of CO 2 given off by human activity is large - but in comparison to natural sources and variations it is small - in this or other threads it is assessed at ~5% or less of atmospheric CO 2Now my understanding of the solubility of gases in water is that: 1. Solubility decreases as temperature rises and 2. Henry's law states that : at constant temperature the mass of a gas dissolved in a given volume of the liquid is directly proportional to the pressure of the gas present in equilibrium with the liquid.From this we get that for any temperature as the amount of gas in the atmosphere rises more gas dissolves. This could easily account for the very small percentage of CO 2 from anthropogenic sources. It seems to be borne out too by the graphics earlier in this thread that show: * lower CO2 concentration at the poles and * rapid reductions in larger amounts of CO 2Once again the oceans and water are the system in the background that stabilizes things. More CO 2 == higher CO 2 solubility. At the same time as ocean temperatures rise - as they have done until recent years - CO 2 solubility drops and it 'out-gases' and atmospheric CO 2 rises until the level meets the Henry's law partial pressure balance. This is complicated by the greater solubility at the poles where water is cold compared to the equator where water is warm. Thus the various convective circulations will move heat and out-gased CO 2 to the poles where it will dissolve back into the water The world does not behave in a linear fashion. I am sure that there are physical chemists here who will be able to confirm this. May I warn you that the antropogenic CO2 flux is a yearly value? Physical Chemists will tell you that antropogenic influence (many traces) can be found ALL over the world even in the most remote areas? (We might be small, but we are many!) The fraction of CO2 dissolved in the ocean is substantial, but the top ocean layer is quickly saturated because it acts as a buffer. Physical oceanographists will tell you that large scale overturning is a slow process. More about CO2 solubility in the oceans can be found in the literature, e.g. Kohler et al. 2006. And the lag between temperature and CO2: Kawamura et al., 2007.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 19, 2009 20:41:07 GMT
Yes, anthropogenic can be found all over the world. That is to be expected.
The actual level of co2 in the atmosphere at the minute levels that it is at present is really not even important. The atmosphere is not in a slab state at any time, so all the slab models are worthless as the chaos overcomes them.
co2 is not an issue unless you are a politician or a scientist who has become corrupt by the sources of funding.
What is important is to get a handle on the natural variations. Something is strong enough to be an actual climate DRIVER. That is where the majority of my interest lies and hopefully most. Co2 is only clouding the issue.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 19, 2009 21:09:18 GMT
Life is so easy and simple. As long as you believe CO2 has something to do with climate change you are a politician or a corrupt scientist. (Now, I think I have an identity crisis...) All research which is not anti-AGW is from corrupt scientists and should not be trusted!
A very skeptic and scientific attitude indeed. Leaves a lot of room for discussion.
I can think of more of this kind of reasoning (I'm not saying they are yours):
"Governments are only for the oppression of people and their goal is to raise taxes!"
"A "free capitalistic" system will solve all your problems!" (as long as you have the money...)
"The atmosphere is chaotic, and chaos is not understood, so nothing can be said about it."
"All processes are natural and nature is so big that we can't influence it!"
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 19, 2009 21:27:49 GMT
Life is so easy and simple. As long as you believe CO2 has something to do with climate change you are a politician or a corrupt scientist. (Now, I think I have an identity crisis...) All research which is not anti-AGW is from corrupt scientists and should not be trusted! A very skeptic and scientific attitude indeed. Leaves a lot of room for discussion. I can think of more of this kind of reasoning (I'm not saying they are yours): "Governments are only for the oppression of people and their goal is to raise taxes!" "A "free capitalistic" system will solve all your problems!" (as long as you have the money...) "The atmosphere is chaotic, and chaos is not understood, so nothing can be said about it." "All processes are natural and nature is so big that we can't influence it!" Thank you AJ: I am sitting here laughing at your response. Life isn't quitttt that simple, but co2 certainly does not much complexity unless you are short of it....or long with it. Where I live in a very rural area allows me to have some perspective on clouds and water as climatic drivers. When a cloud comes over and the temp drops 10F in 10 mins.....that shows real power. Or when our RH drops low, the temp sours during the day and plummets at night.....that is power. I know that is also weather rather than climate, but there are cycles that drive that rh factor. I also observe how the snow/ice evaporates, even when it is -30C. Lots of things that I observe from a 1st hand experience that have made me question the whole co2 thing. Like I said, I wish the climate fellers would get over the co2 delusision, and get on with studying, with an open mind, all things out of the box. That is how important strides have been done in the past..and that applies to today. Mr. Svensmark is onto something.....a fellow countryman of yours I believe. I will have to say that this is the best forum for learning I have seen. None of the denier crap etc, but much so with an open mind to possibilities and no censorship.....great general discussion.
|
|