Does anybody know if there is a replacement CO2 sensing satellite in the works?:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5796656.ece

Le Chatlier strikes again!

see whut story link not working 🙂

I think Wolfgang Knorr re-submitted his paper just recently and that might be why it’s making the rounds again.
Maybe it’ll actually get some media attention this time around ?
I know, I know wishful thinking.

Recent Global Cool-Down Challenges Validity of Climate Change Models
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m1d1-Recent-global-cooldown-challenges-validity-of-climate-change-models

Perhaps Archibald is correct: Earth presently is in a C02 deprived state, and 385 ppm is a paltry figure that represents a scarcity, not an overabundance of, the stuff of life.

I thought some mountain in Hawaii was measuring CO2 concentrations, and has shown a steady 2 or 3 ppm per year increase since measurements started in the 1950s.
You mean this Bristol study says it aint so?
Someone expalin this? I’m lost.

Less CO2 less intelligent species, more abundancy of Gaia believers.

“I thought some mountain in Hawaii was measuring CO2 concentrations, and has shown a steady 2 or 3 ppm per year increase since measurements started in the 1950s.
You mean this Bristol study says it aint so?
Someone expalin this? I’m lost.!”
It does, and no it doesn’t.
It’s about how much (% – the airborne fraction) of the increase emissions stays in the atmosphere? Answer the same percentage, BUT if the amount being emitted increases then the same percentage is more in absolute terms so the atmospheric conc increases. Eg if we, say, emitted 1Gt then 45% of that = .45gt. If we emitted 2 Gt 45% =.9Gt.

JonesII (11:17:46) :
So what?…we just don´t care after “Climate-Gate”!
We do.
We need and will use every sound scientific argument to stop the warmist’s and their sick policies like the C&T and as CO2 is at the core of their argument it would be plain stupid not to use it.
There are legal scores to settle with EPA and the UN IPCC.
We have to deal with the precautionary principle.
Just think of it. We will need any sound argument and the “Bombshell from Bristol” is exactly what we need to defeat them.

The article says
“In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.”
So contrary to Nick Stokes and Peter Hearnden, the article unequivocally states that the airborne fraction is not increasing as a function of increasing CO2 emissions. Mind you, I do not understand how this squares with the statement earlier in the article that 45% of CO2 remaining airborne, but then again, there is no discussion of how long this percentage remains in the air.

Peter Hearnden (11:31:20) :
No tipping point.
The Bristol paper is a bombshell because the AGW bandwagon has been claiming irreversible runaway CO2 warming has been reached. The Earth is still absorbing the same fraction of C02 content as it did before the Industrial Revolution. C02 isn’t driving anything currently, but the people who have been driving the C02 overheating bandwagon have been pulled over.
Let’s see, this same claim was made in the 30’s.
So, this is a 2nd offence.
Suspended liscence is in order.

A bit off topic, but I have a lot of respect for Burt Rutan, and apparently he has a whole page on his website dedicated to “Climate Change” here. In particular, I found his most recent paper on the subject quite interesting. His intro here (.pdf). He is expecting to have completed a full report sometime Q1 of 2010. I think it will be interesting to read his take on this subject once he completes his entire report.

Does this not mean that the biosphere is soaking up a lot of the extra manmade CO2 since the industrial revolution? Or does it mean that natural CO2 has also been increasing along with manmade industrialisation CO2? I’m confused. :o(
—
Nick Stokes (10:40:36) :
Is there a difference between “1958” and ”
1850“? If the IPCC quotes 1958 they were first to publish 1958 and not 1850!!! Sorry in advance Nick if I’m “dense” but I got a hangover. :o(

Robuk (11:46:24) : The frost fairs on the thames,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_frost_fairs
Thanks Robuk. Interesting reading!

Let me see if I get this straight. The paper claims that the proportion of man-made CO2 retained in the atmosphere is more or less constant. In other words, if we generate a million tons of CO2 in a given period, about half a million (.55) tons are retained. This means that half a million tons are absorbed by the oceans, lakes, rocks, trees, etc. What is the physical mechanism behind this strange process, pray tell?
I mean, how does the earth know that it must retain only half of the man-made CO2? How about the naturally emitted CO2? How does nature tell the difference between the two types of CO2? I sense some unseen magic in the woodwork.

Peter Hearnden (11:31:20) :
“Oh, no I don’t dispute you reported this first (well, first to the blogsphere, clearly Science Daily beat you”
Really? Anthony posted the first article on the 10th of November.
“Date : November 10, 2009”
first post was also dated the 10th.
The first Science Daily article:
“ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009)”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
The misrepresentation and subsequent arguing a strawman position are enough for me to doubt anything you say. You may want to at least support this latest claim that ScienceDaily “clearly beat” Anthony.

The main point is the worrying concept/possibility that….
“….some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.”
In other words have the oceans and other eco-systems “maxed” out in their ability to absorb CO2 (be it anthropogenic or otherwise) but the main theme/thesis of Knorr’s paper and WUWT original post in Nov is that they have not…this is great news
I don’t care about whether or not it is anthropogenic or otherwise….

My field of expertise (that provides me employment) is test and measurement. I have always been suspicious of the reports of CO2 levels and have many questions. For one thing, how are ice core based data correlated with other data? For another, how are the data from Mauna Loa validated (calibration, correlation, controls, uncertainty), and what is there relationship to reality? It seems that a lot of importance is placed in what this one observatory ( under questionable management) is supposedly telling us. The AIRS product sure does not help in increasing confidence in the reported CO2 trends. Any study that assumes an even distribution of atmospheric CO2 can be tossed out the window.
I would be interested in finding a primer on the science of CO2 measurement that answers some of my questions. I have considered writing to Dr. Roy Spencer, asking him to write one (but I am sure he does not to be pestered by dweebs like me).

Nick Stokes (11:13:04) :
“So how is the Knorr paper a “bombshell”?”
The article tells you:
“In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.”
And, as you know very well, recent studies have all tended to ‘worse than we thought’ hype. the Knorr paper refutes those studies on this subject.
And the world didn’t even need Steve McIntyre’s help with this slapdown!

The use of the term “airborne fraction” of anthropogenic CO2 muddles Knorr’s conclusions….he should have stated “that fraction of all CO2 remains constant”
Re: Mapou (12:21:51) :
“I mean, how does the earth know that it must retain only half of the man-made CO2? How about the naturally emitted CO2? How does nature tell the difference between the two types of CO2? I sense some unseen magic in the woodwork.”…
it doesn’t…and about half of the natural CO2 is also absorbed…..

Peter Hearnden (12:19:37) :
And if the atmospheric concentration increases, so what? It’s not driving the warming of the planet, and the planet is certainly more than capable of handling the sequestration of 10 times the current amount.
Good luck getting the C02 away from the Calcium Carbonate rocks and back into the bio carbon cycle.
‘The Sednan race spotted Earth 25,000 years ago, a potentially habitable Ice World, needing only to have the Interglacials arrested. By the time the advance scouts got here, they found the Hominids had achieved Industrialization and Advanced Knowledge. They immediately set to work on a 30 year plan to drive them toward destroying their bio carbon cycle.’

Squidly (12:13:52) : A bit off topic, but I have a lot of respect for Burt Rutan
It’s interesting to see that Burt Rutan gives an estimate for thermal time constant of the oceans:
Also, the oceans take 30 to 100 years to react to atmospheric temperature changes http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Do you know what is the origin of this estimate?

Squidly (12:13:52) says:

A bit off topic, but I have a lot of respect for Burt Rutan, and apparently he has a whole page on his website dedicated to “Climate Change” here. In particular, I found his most recent paper on the subject quite interesting. His intro here (.pdf). He is expecting to have completed a full report sometime Q1 of 2010. I think it will be interesting to read his take on this subject once he completes his entire report.

Hmmm, Rutan says:

Also, the oceans take 30 to 100 years to react to atmospheric temperature changes and the alarmists seem to want action “right now.”

I would have thought that, given the greater heat capacity of the oceans compared with the atmosphere, and that the oceans receive energy every day from the sun, that it was unlikely for the oceans would react substantially to atmospheric temperature changes.

I suspect that in the near future, CO2 will phase out as a primary driver of AGW and be replaced by methane.

Richard Sharpe (12:55:04) :
Squidly (12:13:52) says:
I would have thought that, given the greater heat capacity of the oceans compared with the atmosphere, and that the oceans receive energy every day from the sun, that it was unlikely for the oceans would react substantially to atmospheric temperature changes.
Sure it’s the other way around – the thermal mass of the ocean is 700 times larger than the thermal mass of the atmosphere…
However, an ocean thermal time constant in the range between 30 and 100 years seems reasonable!

Peter Hearnden (12:52:08) :

Anthony, so do you think the Knorr paper in the final word on this issue?

I’d love to see any climate paper that you consider to be the “last word”, though AGWers try to shut down debate so much they’d like some to be the “last word”.
REPLY: Well said. It reminds me to remind everyone of Lord Kelvin’s missive: “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” Some facets of Climate Science seem to be imitating Lord Kelvin these days with their focus on CO2 being “the final word” on warming. – A

Willis Eschenbach (13:04:11) :
Nice IPCC goofy list, don’t mind if I do.
Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon dioxide – That’s a land-use issue, not a C02 type issue. A tree could care less which type of C02 it eats.
Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2 – until they discovered all the sea life under the ice.
Heat Hinders Ground’s Ability to Absorb CO2 – I thought sunlight was a prescribed component of photosynthesis. It’s the plant that eats the C02, not the dirt. Frozen plants don’t eat anything.
North American flora can’t absorb continent’s greenhouse gas – I didn’t catch the news that reported all plant life died in N. America.
Antarctic Ocean Losing Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide – bio, bio, bio. Crustaceans make shells. Shells sink. Limestone forms.
Atmospheric CO2 Levels Rising Much Faster than Predicted [from decreasing sequestration] – If the ratio hasn’t changed, the only thing that is faster than predicted is the IPCC giveth and the IPCC taketh away.
Earth may be losing ability to absorb CO2 – That might be true if it eats all the rest of the C02. You can’t absorb something that is doing a Geological timeframe vanishing act. Put in a science perspective, the law of diminishing returns is at work here. Geology has gobbled bio-C02 insatiably.

“Syl (13:24:33) :
[…]
Well, the REAL HUGE HUMONGOUS BOMBSHELL in the last few weeks was the report out of NASA on the AIRS satellite data re CO2. Contrary to ‘consensus’ belief, CO2 is NOT well mixed in the atmosphere. In fact it is rather lumpy.”
Oh, you shouldn’t overplay this. It was a very colorful map but the concentration differences ranged from 382 to 395 ppm or something… Not that lumpy after all. Please go back to the map and find the legend.

Joel Shore (12:41:20) :
“Really? Can you explain that logic?”
Even under the ridiculous assumption that the entire increase in CO2 levels we have witnessed in the last 50 years is anthropogenic CO2, more than half of it is not in the atmosphere after an average of less than 25 years (less than because the release of CO2 is more heavily weighted toward recent decades). This fact completely demolishes analyses such as this.
” I don’t know what you mean by “the dominant time constant”
A dominant time constant would be one which determines the majority of the dynamics. A time constant which accounts for over half of the dissipation of a substance in a given time interval could reasonably be considered “dominant”.
…but the actual claim has been that the persistency is not determined by a single time constant…
Irrelevant. There is no evidence that lingering persistence on the order of hundreds or thousands of years exists, and even less that it exists and is significant. You are dealing in speculative science.
“…because it is highly non-exponential (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ ), with ~1/4 of the perturbation still remaining after hundreds of years.”
More models with predetermined conclusions. Open your eyes. The Bristol paper evaluates real, empirical data.
To all: This really is a potential giant slayer. There are two struts which are absolutely essential in holding up the edifice of CAGW. If either weakens significantly or fails altogether, the entire house of cards collapses.
One is the hypothesis of significant and unopposed positive water vapor feedback, without which CO2 alone will not heat the planet catastrophically. Lindzen and Choi and Spencer, et al., have been chipping away at this strut effectively over the last year.
The other strut is the attribution of the entire increase in CO2 concentration observed over the last 1/2 century to anthropogenic sources. Necessary to this attribution is the assumption of an extremely long persistence of anthropogenic CO2 (but not natural CO2, even though there is no significant difference – but that’s a subject for another time which I have been over extensively elsewhere in the WUWT forums) in the atmosphere. Obviously, if the available sinks removed the CO2 as fast as it were being added, there would be no increase in concentration. As the time constant increases, the level of maximum accumulation increases, up to the entire integrated rate of release. A dominant time constant on the order of 5-10 years, such as has been estimated by several studies, and which is reasonably supported by the Bristol paper, would confirm that the claims of CAGW are without merit.

Dr Knorr himself explains the ramifications of his paper here:
http://jonesthenews.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/bristol-research-does-not-support-climate-change-denial/
“You can always misinterpret the results but I think that experience shows that kind of misinformation dies out quickly.”
[snip- Tom P… that was uncalled for, it is being discussed widely in other venues, and I don’t appreciate your remarks, if you don’t like what we do here start your own blog, otherwise … – A ]

Mapou (12:21:51) :
Let me see if I get this straight. The paper claims that the proportion of man-made CO2 retained in the atmosphere is more or less constant. In other words, if we generate a million tons of CO2 in a given period, about half a million (.55) tons are retained. This means that half a million tons are absorbed by the oceans, lakes, rocks, trees, etc. What is the physical mechanism behind this strange process, pray tell?
I mean, how does the earth know that it must retain only half of the man-made CO2? How about the naturally emitted CO2? How does nature tell the difference between the two types of CO2? I sense some unseen magic in the woodwork
Well it’s all (relative) simple physics. In short: the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at a given temperature are in equilibrum with CO2 in the oceans and in the water of the alveoles of leaves. If there is more CO2 in the water (like in warm eqatorial oceans) some CO2 is going from the oceans to the atmosphere and reverse (near the pooles). If the average temperature doesn’t change, there will be a (dynamic) equilibrium for that temperatrue. If more CO2 is entering the atmosphere, the level goes up and the pressure difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and in water goes up, thus more CO2 is entering the cool waters near the poles and less is escaping near the equator. That is of course simpler than reality, but if you double the addition to the atmosphere, the simple rule says that the uptake rate will double too, all the rest being equal (for the interested reader: the global carbon cycle acts as a simple first order equilibrium process). Something similar is happening in vegetation, but that is far more complex and involves other limitations (sunlight, nutrutiens, water,…).
Of course, the earth’s carbon cycle hardly distiguishes between “man-made” and natural CO2 (it does for a tiny fractionation of isotopes), but as the emissions are one-way additions and the sum of all natural processes is negative (less CO2 increase is measured than there are emissions), there is zero net extra CO2 induced by nature. They are talking about (man made) quantities, not type.

Syl (13:05:50) :
Joel Shore
“What you ignore is that there is a timescale associated with how long it takes the CaCO3 in the rocks to make it into the ocean to neutralize things, and unfortunately, this timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more.”
Um, what YOU ignore is the other end of the process that sucks carbon out of the ocean, sequesters it on the sea floor in shells that later is thrust up as sedimentary rock that eventually makes it back to the ocean.
Thanks for catching my meaning, Syl…you’ve taken away any necessity for me to respond to Joel Shore.

“rbateman (13:34:01) :
[…]
Heat Hinders Ground’s Ability to Absorb CO2 – I thought sunlight was a prescribed component of photosynthesis. It’s the plant that eats the C02, not the dirt. Frozen plants don’t eat anything.”
Minor nitpick: Dirt doesn’t but rock absorbs a lot of CO2 through weathering.

In my opinion, the limited band of CO2 absorption wavelengths is the real issue here. I often see carbon dioxide likened to a blanket covering the earth. But, due to the large transparent holes in that blanket’s Earth radiation blocking spectrum, I think it would be better likened to a wide scarf that you only wear around your neck.
One can still freeze to death if all they have on is a scarf, whether it be one quarter of an inch thick or three inches thick.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png
The critical area is the 6 to 20 micron band. (the above is a naked link)

Ron de Haan (11:52:25)
“Just think of it. We will need any sound argument and the “Bombshell from Bristol” is exactly what we need to defeat them.”
Well, it’s a help, but it’s nowhere near sufficient. To paraphrase what you said, we need as much ammo and weaponry as we can get.
DesertYote (12:44:52) :
Regarding the “measurement of co2” question:
This paper by Beck discusses the Keeling curve and various measurements of CO2, other than ice cores. It has some interesting things to say about the IPCC, as well.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/08_Beck-2.pdf
As far as CO2 scrubbing goes, didn’t those recent nasa pics (don’t have the link handly) show very low CO2 concentrations over forests and high CO2 over deserts?

Here’s a pic from wikipedia showing the rise of CO2 emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
and it looks nowhere like the Keeling curve; also from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Wonder how warmists explain that away. I’m too lazy to do a statistical analysis myself, i mean it’s flogging a dead horse really. It’s just broken.

Joel Shore (12:41:20) :
Bart says:
B) These results demolish the hypothesis that the dominant time constant for anthropogenic CO2 persistency in the atmosphere is on the order of hundreds or thousands of years
Really? Can you explain that logic? I don’t see how they have anything to say one way or the other on that subject. (Note: I don’t know what you mean by “the dominant time constant” but the actual claim has been that the persistency is not determined by a single time constant because it is highly non-exponential (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ ), with ~1/4 of the perturbation still remaining after hundreds of years
To a certain extent, this indeed is contrary to the multi time constant rate of absorption of the IPCC’s Bern (and other) models. If there were important slow time constants, we should see that the fastest time constant has troubles to maintain the rate of absorption as in the article is disproven. The Bern model may be only of some importance if we burn near all available oil and enormous amounts of coal, as only then the deep oceans CO2 concentration will increase substantially, which affects the atmospheric concentrations after a long delay.
See the work and discussion of Peter Dietze at:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
and the difference between the Dietze model and the Bern model for current CO2 levels, if we should stop all emissions today:
http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/262958/De_CO2-cyclus (last graph)

I remember seeing someone claim that crops were growing faster because of all the extra CO2. I guess that’s mass hysteria for you.
At some point, someone has to call this AGW movement mass hysteria. Just like the dot-com bubble & the real estate bubble & the investment banking bubble, it has its true believers who will eventually be hurt by it. People quibbled about the details on those things too, and, then the obvious fraud was found out.

Many papers say CO2 turnaround time is about 7 years. Segalstad says 5.4 years.
So, since the turnaround time is so short ,and it ends up as seabed sediment, whats the problem?

DirkH (13:56:56) :
“rbateman (13:34:01) :
[…]
Heat Hinders Ground’s Ability to Absorb CO2 – I thought sunlight was a prescribed component of photosynthesis. It’s the plant that eats the C02, not the dirt. Frozen plants don’t eat anything.”
Minor nitpick: Dirt doesn’t but rock absorbs a lot of CO2 through weathering.
That’s the part that bothers me. Seems that we are losing C02 to geologic formations that don’t want to give it back.

Syl (13:24:33) :
“Perhaps an expert like Joel Shore can illuminate us. Ya think?”
Funny! One of my other areas of interest is aquatic ecosystems. I thought about responding to some comments of his before posting what I did, but decided not to bother, “… timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more.” He has obviously read “all the literature” so what could I add? All I have is my knowledge gained through actual observations and experiments. I don’t think that would help as I’m not a peer reviewed moonbat. For the record, the timescale is on the order of a thousand days at most. If it was not, coral reefs would not exist!
Its a shame that it seems that all of the sciences have been overrun by those with a political agenda.

nofreewind (12:54:54) :
This is all based on the carbon cycle which is nothing but a theory, because although they might be able to make a fair estimate of man-made CO2 emissions, it is almost impossible IMHO, to estimate accurately Ocean and land-based fluxes. The IPCC even says so, here is a very important IPCC picture.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
note: the caption – “Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%”.
You need to make a distinction between the total inventory and the individual flows: The year by year increase is what is really measured +/- 0.2 ppmv. The emissions is what is calculated from fossil fuel sales +/- 0.5 ppmv. That is what is important: in average 55% of the fossil fuel emissions (as extra mass, not as individual molecules) is remaining in the atmosphere. Where the extra CO2 is going into is not known with high accuracy, it may be that in one year more is going into vegetation, the other year more in the oceans, depending of temperature and precipitation. But that is not important for the overall inventory, as that is not based on individual fluxes.
To accept the 43% figure you have to accept all the other models, like the carbon cycle, as absolute truth and ignore the 20% error factor they admit to. (Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%). That error factor is much more than man’s CO2 contribution.
The overall inventory is not based on any model.
What about the warming oceans? I think we can all accept that global temperature have warmed somewhat since 1850 and warmer oceans will release more CO2. This warmer article,Carbon Dioxide in the Oceans, states: “In general, tropical waters release CO2 to the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO2 from the atmosphere.” How is all of that measured?, There are millions of miles of ocean each releasing or taking up a different amount of CO2 depending on temperature gradients.
The short term influence of temperature is about 4 ppmv/K. For (very) long term temperature changes (glacials-interglacials), the ratio goes up to about 8 ppmv/K, far too small to be the cause of the increase: 8 ppmv for a temperature increase of about 1 K since the LIA, while we see a 100+ ppmv increase…
The natural world creates about 212 Gt of Carbon, yet man only creates about 7-8 Gt, or 3-4% of natural. Yet the IPCC admits to error bars of 20% in their Carbon/CO2 estimates. Call me a skeptic, but you know what I think, I think they start with the man-made 7-8 Gt and then work “backwards”, making all the other number fit.
The 212 GtC is not important at all, as some more is removed (216 GtC) at the other side of the globe and/or in another season. Even if it was 1,000 GtC in and 1,004 GtC out, this isn’t important, as long as more is removed by nature than added, only the emissions are important…

Invariant (13:13:00) :

Are people actually saying that if we heat the atmosphere that the water and land will only absorb that additional heat over a time scale of years?
Surely that cannot be true: the whole pattern of evaporation and precipitation will even out air temperature to water temperature in much less time. Hotter air will cool itself by evaporating water faster, which will be returned as rain to the water and land.
If it is true that heated air will only slowly pass on any gained heat, then the whole CO2 thing falls apart. Our burning of fossil fuels more than accounts for the change in air temperature.

DirkH (12:43:36) :
Sorry completely O/T but this is just too funny, it’s on the
right side of the ScienceDaily page, a link to…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091223074659.htm
Actually not that OT, as it illustrates how to screw up good research. As evolution progressed, going on the hypothesis these changes are for decreasing the odds of successful mating, then wouldn’t the genes that lead to the least-successful mating get removed from the gene pool simply because there would be less offspring? More successful mating leads to more offspring thus greater dispersion of genes for more successful mating, seems pretty straightforward. On what basis would they conclude that less-successful mating would be a desirable trait more likely to get passed on?
Looking at the concept of such difficult plumbing, I would conclude something else. As more than one Amazonian tourist has found out, it can be dangerous to be naked in certain natural bodies of water, there are assorted critters, worms and larvae etc, that like to swim up the plumbing. By having a longer stretch of plumbing, somewhat convoluted and with a few dead ends, the odds of the critters getting in to where they can seriously affect fertility is reduced. Thus genes protecting against critter-related loss of fertility would be selected for propagation, thus the difficult plumbing seen is explainable in a way that is in accordance with evolutionary theory.
Going deeper in the article, they think the difficult plumbing is aimed at thwarting aggressive forced mating. By experiments with glass tubes using assorted shapes from the difficult plumbing, they think they show the shapes prevent duck phalli from working properly, thus the shapes are thwarting forced mating. For one thing, I think it shows duck phalli do not work properly in a hard non-resilient substance like glass. Couldn’t they have used silicone models with a few drops of glycerin or vegetable oil? Second, if they keep aggressive males from successfully completing their task, why would more docile males be more successful in a less-aggressive coupling? They are examining an effect that takes less than a half of a second, so the difference does not seem to be coming from the males. Are the females doing anything different that would make the less-aggressive mating more successful, thus propagating the genes giving a preference in fertilization to the less-aggressive mating?
Offhand the work seems tainted by a bit of feminist feel-good philosophy, “Nature helps the females fight back!” In reality aggressive forced mating, when the males do not have to worry about child rearing, is normally rather successful. When males take part in child care, aggressive males gather harems. Repeatedly, evolution chooses aggressive males. Therefore this research shows that evolution is thwarting male aggressiveness?
Note the lead author is named Patricia. No comment.

“Bart (14:22:33) :
DirkH (14:03:13)
If I am correct in my belief of how the dynamics should manifest themselves, there should be evidence of the accelerated input within roughly a 5-10 year lag interval, and it should be small.”
So they say it’s taking the air from a power plants chimney that long to reach Hawaii? Through some hand-waving dynamics?
This is all so sad. I mean it’s sad that journalists and politicians believe this obvious rubbish.

Early in this discussion Marcus posted this link:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm
According to the graph “Atmospheric CO2 Background 1826-1960”, CO2 levels were fairly stable from 1870 to about 1920 and then began a gradual upward trend. In the mid 1930’s the graph shows an strong annual increase of atmospheric CO2 which peaks in the early 1940’s, followed by a decline back to the prior levels for the early part of the 20th century. The mid-1930’s were very warm with a peak in 1934.
An old chemistry book I have, written around 1940, shows CO2 as component of atmosphere at around 350 ppm which is more or less what the graph indicates which gives some rough validation to the accuracy of the graph—at least in this time frame.
A question comes to mind. What caused the increased warming (circa 1934) *before* the maximum CO2 concentration in the early 1940″s–a decade or so later? This looks to me as if CO2 follows warming—and fairly quickly too. It suggests something(s) other than CO2 is driving global temperature swings.

Congratulations, Anthony!
You have done mankind a great service.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

I should have said “Without Ko, an adot which is less than or equal to 3% or so of the value of Co/tau, which is the rate of natural CO2 release, results in an upper bound of a 3% steady state increase in the level of C.”
Also, to further explain the last comment, tau is the value of the time constant at a locally linearized set point. If the state evolves to such a point that the linearization no longer is an accurate description, then if the dynamics are smooth, you can re-linearize about a new set point which has a modified value of tau. From this, you can reason yourself to a model in which tau is dynamically changing with C. However, the Bristol paper argues that the dynamics are not really changing significantly with the increasing concentration of CO2.

Joel Shore (13:36:02) :
“None of these things are being ignored. What matters is the rates at which these processes occur. Read the literature…Then comment.”
You have utterly missed the point. It’s not about what happens on land, it’s what’s happening in the oceans. Any comparison of rates between the two is a diversion.

“Kim Moore (15:02:43) :
[…]
This looks to me as if CO2 follows warming—and fairly quickly too. It suggests something(s) other than CO2 is driving global temperature swings.”
Some say cosmic rays: Svensmark , Kirkby.
video 1 hour presentation by Kirkby
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
the slides used in the presentation
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576

“Dr. Roy Spencer in his book “Climate Confusion,” points out how man-made global warming alarmists attempt to mislead the public by claiming that global CO2 emissions total about 50 billion tons per year. He fails to acknowledge that the total weight of the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. In other words, the 50 billion tons adds to 5 million billion tons, or a mere 10 parts per million – relatively speaking, a trivial change each year.”
Bay City power plant crippled by false global warming Information
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/bay-city/index.ssf/2010/01/bay_city_power_plant_crippled.html

Look at it from a plant’s perspective:
At about 150 ppm CO2, most plants stop uptake.
The CO2 content of Antarctic ice core during glacial epochs fell to 180 ppm–if that was the global average for CO2 maybe that explains why core ice had much higher dust content as deserts expanded from loss of vegetation.
Plants do much better between 1,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm; that’s why greenhouses are augmented with CO2 to those levels. Plants also utilize water better with higher levels of CO2 so less water is needed and many arid regions are now experiencing notable greening as a consequence.
I’ve read where some experts estimate the maximum CO2 content of the atmosphere would approach about 600 ppm with additional anthropogenic sources, which is not where plants would really like it, and certainly below any levels harmful to humans. At approximately 600 ppm, equilibrium would set in, and it would stay at the level until all fossil fuels were burned up, after which time it would decline. Maybe by then we’ll look aroud for all those oilfields where CO2 was sequestered and release that into the atmosphere.
The oceans contains about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, so it doesn’t take much warming of the oceans to make a significant contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Conversely, carbonic acid, formed as rain falls through the atmosphere, eventually reaches the sea, and this H2CO3 is quickly incorporated into the shells of marine animals. It doesn’t take thousands of years for those little critters to get busy.
The land biomass should expand until it reaches a point of equilibrium, which would undoubtedly be larger than total biomass today. That bodes well for all ecosystems, which benefits mankind, too.
So plants will continue to see an advantage, especially if the BRIC countries continue to make their contributions to a greener planet. And I don’t see anything stopping them, certainly not snowstorms next summer in Mexico City.
Or will Gore not be invited?

Mooloo (14:54:26): Are people actually saying that if we heat the atmosphere that the water and land will only absorb that additional heat over a time scale of years?
Yes. It seems so¹. I’ve been working with commercial thermal simulations for quite some time, and I can assure you that it takes years to heat or cool down an ocean with an average depth of ~4000 metres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
Do you know the concept of thermal mass? A very nice analogy with an electrical RC circuit is found here:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node129.html
The time constant, τ, is in accord with our intuition, or experience; high density, large volume, or high specific heat all tend to increase the time constant, while high heat transfer coefficient and large area will tend to decrease the time constant.
Now imagine the high density, large volume and high specific heat of the ocean…
¹http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak Up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101155.html

Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:51:11) :
Nice to see you here again.
“The 212 GtC is not important at all, as some more is removed (216 GtC) at the other side of the globe and/or in another season. Even if it was 1,000 GtC in and 1,004 GtC out, this isn’t important, as long as more is removed by nature than added, only the emissions are important…”
This is something that has bothered me ever since I started studying this whole issue. It seems the carbon cycle is not a zero-sum game at all. Over the past 600 million years CO2 has been dropping almost steadily and I assume it has to do with life itself. CO2 down, O2 up. At some point, 180ppm I think, most photosynthesis will cease. We definitely need a cushion especially before the next glaciation hits!

“THE Climategate scandal continues to unfold. The thousands of emails leaked to the internet from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal a tight-knit, influential group of scientists whose attitude to their profession is, to say the least, distorted.
It seems that a religious belief in disastrous climate change has destroyed their common sense and their appreciation of what is the appropriate way to carry out research.
Climategate may at least demonstrate that the concept of a scientific consensus with regard to global warming is nonsense. There may indeed be thousands of scientists contributing to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but on any particular aspect of the overall story all have to rely on the word of the few scientists who are directly involved. And when the particular aspect concerns experimental data on which the whole story rests, the data purporting to show the world is getting warmer, then the consensus argument is indeed on shaky ground.”
Boffins may be Illegal
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/boffins-may-be-illegal/story-e6frg6zo-1225815349833

First: It is silly to think that the ability of the planet to absorb atmospheric co2 is in any way a constant. It likely has negative and positive feedbacks in and of itself that are poorly understood if understood at all.
Second: The steady increase in measured CO2 in the atmosphere from Hawaii is actually devastating for those who want to blame humans. The reason for this is simple. We just went through the bad part of a major worldwide recession where even large numbers of Chinese lost their jobs. Yet the increase in measured CO2 didn’t waver one bit from it’s upward slope. So, if worldwide consumption falls, and brings CO2 emissions with it (as it must do), and CO2 still increases at the same rate…. doesn’t that demonstrate quite clearly that the human impact on CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible? Even assuming there is a lag time, you would expect the increase in CO2 to at least level off in an instantaneous measurement, that didn’t happen. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s back to square one to demonstrate that humans are even responsible for the measured CO2 increase.

“Bart (15:55:59) :
[…]
If you elevate the rate at which you are forcing CO2 into the atmosphere, it takes a while to integrate into an observable change. Further, the change is being opposed by the natural sinks”
Ok – i see. I forgot that the Keeling curve is the integration of the emissions. So obviously the curve must look different. The two graphics i linked to can thus not be expected to look the same. We would need to see the differential of the Keeling curve to compare it with the yearly emissions. My mistake.

“Syl (16:03:11) :
We definitely need a cushion”
We have a big cushion: the oceans.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm

I’ve nothing more to add from what i’ve written on other threads on this matter. However, I still am highly amused with the obsession with c02. Its irreleveant to the climate, and there are no arguments to be developed anymre about its role, and I think the AGW lobby know this – that more c02 doesn’t mean more heat, or contrarywise that less c02 doesn’t mean any less.
Its the emotional obsession with c02 which is amusing from a scientific perspective – I think RLindezen covered it by saying that its because it goes after people to dwell on c02 and explode its role up to some phenomenal degree. Its effectively like claiming that if the air pressure is high, don’t walk outside as you’ll be trudging through something as dense as sludge.
for all those who still think ice cores are the holy grail of co2 measurements: It takes 80 years for air bubbles to close and anything could happen to the c02 content during that time – its something that isn’t well understood, so although they show a trend, they don’t show a precise resolution or an exact real time data match: neither could c02 from air bubbles at ground level over glacial areas be an exact proxy for what the c02 content was in the northern hemisphere, such as Mauna Loa, Italy, USA, France, Scandinavia, etc during the same time period that is indicated by ancient ice in subzero regions.

“Michael (15:39:33) :
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak Up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101155.html
”
Sanity to Intelligence: Looks like we lost the WashPost. Intelligence to Sanity: We never had them in the first place.

Joel Shore (12:41:20)
What you ignore is that there is a timescale associated with how long it takes the CaCO3 in the rocks to make it into the ocean to neutralize things, and unfortunately, this timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more.
Which would be correct if we use the abiogenic arguments,however as is well known the earth is inhabited by living species that have a remarkable property of increasing the topology (surface area eg koch curve) of the globe,which in turn increase or enhance the weathering and its subsequent effects on climate.
eg Biotic enhancement of weathering and the habitability of Earth
David W. Schwartzman* & Tyler Volk†
: AN important question in the Earth sciences is the role of the biota in the chemical weathering of silicate rocks, which affects atmospheric CO2 and therefore climate1-10. No comprehensive study of biotic influences, however, has quantitatively examined the climatic consequences were weathering to take place under completely abiotic conditions. Here we calculate that if today’s weathering is 10, 100 or 1,000 times the abiotic weathering rate, then an abiotic Earth would be, respectively, approx15, 30 or 45 °C warmer than today. The upper two temperatures are preferred estimates because of the probable almost complete absence of soil under abiotic conditions, suggesting that without a biota that significantly enhances weathering rates, the Earth today would be uninhabitable for nearly all but the most primitive microbes. Life may have been crucial in cooling early Earth and maintaining relatively cool conditions.
Whilst this has been known foe some time Dokuchaev, V.V 1879, Vernadsky 1922,the Cycle of Weathering: B. B. Polynov 1937, 1950 and its implication as a BVP seem to be overlooked by the IPCC and in the UEA studies Global Carbon Project etc ,Then again if you can quantify the carbon cycle whilst disregarding 50% of the earths biomass by volume (the microbial world ) and still “balance the books” within 3 significant figures,is it not legitimate to question the accuracy of the “outcomes” and hence forecasts.

I find this story almost impossible to believe. Why? Because it’s the very foundation stone of the AGW hypothesis. I haven’t seen it covered in the mainstream at all. Are people busy preparing rebuttals?

Ferdinand Engelbeen (15:37:42)
i admit some scepticism of the isotope ratios of c/12/13/14 ratios, and to the background of c02 as being a fixed pool that could not possible surpass 280ppm, since that is the maximum value that is inferred from old ice. We don’t have exact aerial measurements from direct chemical analysis from the period that is covered by ice core measurements – which are ice core proxies and not necessarily atmospheric c02 measurements, any more than we don’t have reliable arctic ice extents prior to 1979. However, since global temperatures are often inferred as greater than today and at much lower levels of co2 than today, then it suggests that either c02 has no influence on the climate, or that ice co2 measurements are not accurate as to the aerial co2 content of the time period they reflect. In fact both these statements could be true.
They’re both engineered (like satellite data) to produce a result. With isotopes, i’m sure you’re acquainted with Segalstaad’s investigation and have concocted a refutation of it – however, determining a ratio from isotopes is akin to scratching several molecules from a diesel locomotive’s engine piston and then elaborating exactly what its horsepower and torque is. Its a big leap of faith…

ok well how about the sum total of all living species on the planet, including the billions of humans. How much co2 does the sum total of animal life exhale per annum? and if this stays in the atmosphere for 100 years (or 40 years seems a new favourite) , that is a huge amount of non-fossil fuel c02 that probably surpasses fossil fuel co2, and is addition to the carbon cycle.
Ferdinand – given these factors, there should be much more c02 than there is in the atmosphere. However, these exchanges of c02 are not measured, as its an impossible task at present, and so the figures are speculation. Given the diurnal-seasonal-annual-decadal-multidecadal trends in c02 – there is a suggestion that co2 molecules can be absorbed as quickly as they are emitted, and emitted as quickly as they are absorbed.

DirkH: Read CO2 Houdini of Gases

DirkH (16:18:32) :
“Bart (15:55:59) :
[…]
If you elevate the rate at which you are forcing CO2 into the atmosphere, it takes a while to integrate into an observable change. Further, the change is being opposed by the natural sinks”
Ok – i see. I forgot that the Keeling curve is the integration of the emissions. So obviously the curve must look different. The two graphics i linked to can thus not be expected to look the same. We would need to see the differential of the Keeling curve to compare it with the yearly emissions. My mistake.
I forgot that the Keeling curve corresponds to the integration of the emissions
There is an extreme good correlation between accumulated emissions and the increase in the atmosphere over the past 46 years. In itself a strong indication that the emissions cause the increase, as there is no natural process capable to follow the emissions in ratio to such a degree:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
The graph is for Mauna Loa and the South Pole trends, as these show that the increasing emissions in the NH give an increase in lag of the SH CO2 trend.
The trends compared with the temperature trend over the period 1900-2004 (CO2 levels in ice cores up to 1960):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Which shows that temperature is not the driving force for CO2 levels: CO2 still increases in ratio with the emissions, even if the temperature doesn’t increase in the 1945-1975 period and in the current period since 1998.

Mooloo (14:54:26) :

Are people actually saying that if we heat the atmosphere that the water and land will only absorb that additional heat over a time scale of years?
Surely that cannot be true: the whole pattern of evaporation and precipitation will even out air temperature to water temperature in much less time. Hotter air will cool itself by evaporating water faster, which will be returned as rain to the water and land.
If it is true that heated air will only slowly pass on any gained heat, then the whole CO2 thing falls apart. Our burning of fossil fuels more than accounts for the change in air temperature.

I agree. As all sea swimmers will tell you, the oceans are still warm in autumn, and even into winter to some extent, but cold in spring, and even into summer. So I would suspect that it takes less than six months. Not years. Six months. Perhaps ocean currents make a difference, bit what about large lakes? I understand there are a few in North America.
No we look at what is happening to the oceans. It seems, as I recall, that they are cooling. Not starting to warm up. The heat is not going into the oceans to come back and kill us all at some future tipping point.
I’m not sure what to think, but it does not seem as though we have anything to be alarmed about, does it?

Thanks Ferdinand – that’s the important correlation that’s broken now.

Ferdinand Engelbeen (17:11:21) :
So how about fumaroles? How much co2 do they put into the atmosphere per annum?

DirkH (16:24:15) :
“Syl (16:03:11) :
We definitely need a cushion”
We have a big cushion: the oceans.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm
——-
Nice link.
No that is not the cushion we need because it won’t help us after we’ve fallen into the cold cold depths of glaciation where in the past I believe the cold oceans absorbed so much CO2 that it dropped to around 200PPM….only when we come out of it after 90 thousand years will we get it back.

hotrod (16:12:38) :
As I am understanding this application of the average residence time free in the atmosphere, it would imply that a CO2 molecule has a half life of 5.4-7 years as an atmospheric molecule. Half would be absorbed sooner and half would survive longer.
If let’s say you add only red colored human CO2 to the atmosphere (containing 800 colourless GtC) in one shot of 100 GtC. The red color will disappear with a yearly exchange rate of 150 GtC/900 GtC or about 17% per year, as the 150 GtC input is all by colourless CO2 from the other reservoirs. That doesn’t influence the fact that still most of the 900 GtC is in the atmosphere, as the catch of a red CO2 prevents the catch of a colourless CO2, which remains in the atmosphere. Thus the extra 100 GtC (as mass, not as red molecules) still is in the atmosphere, minus about 4 GtC (at current rates) which is the extra amount absorbed mainly by the oceans and vegetation (no matter the colour). Thus we still have 896 GtC in the atmosphere. And so on.
You see the difference: the exchange rate (residence time) is 150/900, while the excess absorption rate is only 4/900, which means that the red coloured CO2 will be gone long before the total quantity of CO2 is back to the original level.

Ferdinand Engelbeen (17:36:40) :
returning to the sources of c02: There’s animal respiration (all living animals) plants, oceans, fossil fuels, fumaroles, and so on. If this half life of 40 years, or residence time of 100 years (with an uncertainty factor of diurnal/5 years – 100 years – yes confusing) there must be one heck of a quantity of c02 in the atmosphere. Yet nature seems to etablish an equilibrium of 0.04% aerial. In looing through the siple dome data, there isn’t an increase between 1935 and ’45 – it stays constant, and otherwise, the record doesn’t follow a curve with fossil fuel emissions thereafter.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full.pdf
One thing learned from ice cores is the trend of delay of 800-1500 years between temperature and c02 – and that given this delay, its obvious that warming can occur whilst c02 decreases through some prior sequence 800 years previously. Veizer is a data source on that, than Beck
So: Just what was the state of affairs 800 years ago that gives us a natural high cycle of c02 today? A clue is SST’s which have been higher over the 20th-21stCenturies than hitherto, and that the sea surface contains 1000GT’s of c02 – and as SST’s are 1C warmer than 140 years ago, where a 0.1C increase in temperature is enough to allow oceans to emit 6GT’s of c02 into the atmosphere Takahashi (1961) , which supposedly accumulates too, though it doesn’t as its always in transition. put simply – a 1C increase in temperatures at 30 metres is enough to put 600GT’s into the atmosphere (which is nearly all co2 in the atmosphere) which leaves less co2 to be emitted from tropical oceans – so it seems that most of the increase in c02 since 140 years has in fact been natural.

It might very well be that, considering the low levels to which CO2 falls during a glacial epoch (I agree with Syl above that a cold ocean is probably the major repository) and the threshold of about 150 ppm for plant uptake (below which they die and by extension, plant-eating animals, including man, all die), the best hope for survival is the CO2 that man is now pumping into the atmosphere. Of course, arable land may be at a premium for ~100,000 years, but without that extra CO2, the situation might be grim, indeed. That both animals and humans have survived prior glacial epochs gives proof that CO2 levels didn’t fall below threshold everywhere for long, but then humans weren’t very numerous, either.
It almost makes me wish CO2 was a better greenhouse gas than it is.

Kevin Kilty (18:58:35) :
“The earth doesn’t know what fraction it must maintain. The fraction (0.45 or whatever) is the result of two competing processes, 1)CO2 emission and 2)absorption in a multitude of sinks and souces, and their associated time-constants.”
Only none of these sinks and sources are fixed. We just get back to the standard figures of c02 stored in vegetation, decay, detritus etc is three times that of the atmosphere, ocenaic c02 considerably more etc – yet nature prevents aerial co2 from accumulating, and tumbling erratically and maintains a uniform increase, even though all natural sources are vastly greater than human sources.

Slightly OT, but ETH Zurich is claiming glacier melt in the 1940s was driven by aerosols and solar radiation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231124858.htm
“On the basis of their calculations, the researchers have concluded that the high level of short-wave radiation in the summer months is responsible for the fast pace of glacier melt. In the 1940s, the level was 8% higher than the long-term average and 18 Watts per square metres above the levels of the past ten years. Calculated over the entire decade of the 1940s, this resulted in 4% more snow and ice melt compared with the past ten years.”
CO2 is not the only player (if it is a significant one at all).

This study is no bombshell. It’s a tentative contradiction to some recent studies tentatively suggesting that the absorptive capacity of the global carbon sinks has decreased. There have been other papers saying the airborne fraction is holding steady. The model runs in AR4 produce various carbon flux changes over time, most not changing in a statistically significant way until 2025 (when they begin to diverge from each other). The IPCC reports that CO2 emissions/airborne fraction has held steady for half a century, and that it is expected the fraction will change in the future. The Knorr study is a welcome addition to current observations. Time will tell if the study is robust, as with those recent ones saying differently. Prognostications on future climate change assume (variously) that the airborne fraction will hold steady [Hansen and Sato (2004) in AR4 Ch 2], and that it will increase.
There’s no particular reason to elevate this study over the others (or the others over this). As for the media response, it’s no surprise that stories about decreasing carbon sinks would get more traction than a story of no change at all. It may not be ideal for us trying to wrestle with the nitty gritty, but there is grist for complaint on the media from both ‘sides’, and this is not a key issue. CO2 will is still rising in the atmosphere. If studies using sound methodology (like Knorr’s) showed that the rate was slowing down and the media ignored that, then there might be something weighty to complain about.
Oh, and Anthony Watts was quick(est) on the draw in November. That’s the point of the top post, innit? Well, no argument there.

Joel Shore (12:41:20) said:
[with regards to CO2 uptake by the oceans, forming carbonate]
“It doesn’t ignore that at all. What you ignore is that there is a timescale associated with how long it takes the CaCO3 in the rocks to make it into the ocean to neutralize things, and unfortunately, this timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more. You can read about this, for example, in David Archer’s book “The Long Thaw”.”
I think Joel has confused things here. The oceans act as a CO2 sink not just because CO2 is soluble in H2O (quantifiable by Henry’s Law), but also because the calcium in the ocean binds the carbonate (carbon dioxide is in a reversible equilibrium with aqueous carbonate: H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, and carbonic acid lose and proton [and gains stability] with a pKa of 6.4). Thus, the kinetics of the CaCO3 at the solid/aqueous interface is not the question, but instead the kinetics of the solution phase reaction Ca++ + 2HCO3- = CaCO3 + 2H+, which is very fast. Now, if we were dumping HCl into the oceans and the solid CaCO3 would act as a buffer to prevent lower of pH, I would agree with you, but we’re discussing the ability of the oceans to suck up CO2, not suck up free protons from another acid.
This can all be confirmed by considering the concentrations in ocean water:
Ca++ ~ 10.7 mM
HCO3- ~ 2.4 mM
Realizing that 388 ppm CO2 and a Henry’s Law constant of 29.4 L*atm/mol would yield a saturated solution of only 0.013 mM carbon dioxide without any of the above reactions shows just how important they are for oceans acting as a CO2 sink. Note that Ca++ > 4*HCO3-, implying (somewhat) that the ocean can still absorb a very large amount of CO2 even without biological help.
What’s amazing is how much CO2 the oceans should be capable of absorbing. Here are my back-of-the-envelope calculations. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or feel free to improve upon my results:
Atmosphere’s height if constant density = 5600m (Wikipedia)
Earth’s diameter = 12735875m (avg of equator/poles from About.com)
Thus, the volume of Earth’s atmosphere at STP ~ 2.87*10^27 L (using the differences in the two 4/3*pi*r^3 values).
Ocean Volume = 1.30*10^27 L (Wikipedia)
STP air is = 22.414 mol/L
Thus, 388 ppm CO2 = 0.0087 mol/L
Thus, total CO2 in atmosphere = 2.48*10^25 mol
If ALL of this went inorganically into the oceans (ignoring equilibrium or any biological/soil uptake), it would add ~19 mmol carbonate to the ocean…OH MY GOSH, THIS IS SUPER HIGH, WHAT WILL WE DO!
…Oh wait, in 2008 the world anthropogenic emission was 8 billion metric tons of carbon, aka 8.0*10^15 g = 1.8*10^14 mol = ~0.14 PICOMOLAR in the ocean. Put another way, if we pumped the equivalent CO2 anthropogenic emissions from 2008 directly into the ocean for the next 720 MILLION years, we would increase the CO2 concentration (if not damped/consumed by calcium/biology) in the ocean by 0.1 mM, or 4.1%.
But this somewhat misses the whole point of this article–which is to show that the efficiency/performance of worldwide carbon sinks has not appreciably decreased, in contrast to what many CAGW supporters routinely claim. This makes sense given the above calculations.

P Gosselin (11:23:42) :
I thought some mountain in Hawaii was measuring CO2 concentrations, and has shown a steady 2 or 3 ppm per year increase since measurements started in the 1950s.
You mean this Bristol study says it aint so?
Someone expalin this? I’m lost
BS: That mountain you are refering to is down wind of an active volcanoe. I am using a different PC atm, or I would post the link to an article I read about. The article basically says that station is taking biased CO2 readings because of it being so close and in the direct path of the volcanoe’s output/ gases/ exhaust. You be the judge, but for me I have reservations/ or will remain skeptical of the validity of the Bristol study.
Happy New Year- Brandon

Scott (20:46:47) : Now no fair using real science and math to argue with Joel that just makes things more confusing by making them clear and that is the last thing the facts need.
/sarc off

I woke to -33′ C with the wind -45. WE had one of the coldest summers in my 47 years. The year before didn’t need any air on in the house. The year before one week was in the 30′ . We may need a greener earth but put the Bull$hit to rest . If every thing was good they would have no new taxes. 911taxes, WMD taxes ect so things look bad, but good for the taxman! This is just my take

Eric (skeptic) (21:12:10) :
A claim that 100% or even 95% of the added CO2 is due to fossil fuels because of the C13/C12 ratio change would be suspect without a comprehensive model to back it up. Even then I would have some doubts about a quantitative claim.
Before models, the data are not clear . Have a look at chiefios summary:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
The data are sure not settled, imo, so what use of models?

Oops! I meant 0.01 of an inch per year.

It sounds like Nature is matching our carbon emissions if our fraction remains the same and yet CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise.
So, if we somehow managed to reduce our C02 emissions, Nature would continue to emit C02?
BTW, is man natural and if not then why so?

Yes but……
This article by Tim Ball, December 28, 2009
I think is another one , it mentions Zbigniew Jaworowski and Ernst Beck from back in 2008 (You probably covered this also) and Tom Wigley from 1983.
This article mentions a a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski.
Ernst Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research in a September 2008 article in Energy and Environment.
Beck found, “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
And the real kicker I think is The Hockey Team Member
Tom Wigley, who is the heart of the CRU gang, introduced the 280 ppm number to the climate science community with a 1983 paper titled, “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” (Climatic Change 5, 315-320). He based his work on studies by G. S. Callendar (1938) of thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1812. Callendar rejected most of the records, including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected records that established 280 ppm as the pre-industrial level.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343

Hmmm, a very complicated matter, indeed. Luckily, the science is settled, so we dont need to worry about this.
Just pay our taxes, and thats it!
In the mean time, I’m enjoying reading Professor Segalstad;
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_CO2-Science_090805.pdf

anon,
when I looked at that story about the fast pace of glacial melt in the 40s, I didn’t take it at face value. The reason is that the basic premise of the whole study is why did the glaciers melt faster in the 40s when the CRU temp DB “proves” that it was not as warm then. Then you read the climategate emails, and see the discussion of tamping down the “warm blip” seen in the temperature data in the 40s, and I just assume that the problem is that the CRU temp history is wrong, and it really was warmer in the 40s, and we don’t need to go looking for zebras when the hoof beats are perfectly explained by horses.

Some time ago I remember seeing a similar map showing NOx concentrations. The industrialized regions were immediately obvious.
The CO2 map shows no increased concentration over industrialized regions. Even with today’s increased CO2 levels natural sources appear to dominate.
Does this not suggest that today’s CO2 levels are determined by nature and not mankind?

here is a section 1999 – 2002 of 10 CO2 measuring stations
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3694/co2manytrends.png
Note the linear trends show 3 outliers Sary Taukum (land locked) south pole and baring head (both south southern hemisphere).
The variation between outliers is approx 6 ppm
Also please read:
Willis Eschenbach (03:24:54) :

Wansbeck (05:31:29) :
“Some time ago I remember seeing a similar map showing NOx concentrations. The industrialized regions were immediately obvious.
The CO2 map shows no increased concentration over industrialized regions. Even with today’s increased CO2 levels natural sources appear to dominate.
Does this not suggest that today’s CO2 levels are determined by nature and not mankind?”
This is a really good question and one that, until last night, I assumed to be a big arguing point and presumably in conflict only because of the ability of the Earth/plants to absorb CO2. However, the estimates I did for the ocean (see above) really got me thinking, so I’ll do similar ones here for the atmosphere and show that man has no measurable influence.
Global anthropogenic carbon, 2008 = 8 billion metric tons (Wikipedia)
STP Volume of atm (calculated in above post from Wiki/About.com data) = 2.86*10^27 Liters
This equates to 1.82*10^14 mol/yr of CO2. Diluting this uniformly into the atmosphere and assuming steady uptake & removal of all natural CO2 gives an expected CO2 rise from anthropogenic sources of only 0.0000031 ppm/yr.
This answer really, really bothers me. It’s an easy calculation to do, and anyone with freshmen-level chemistry, physics, or engineering can do it. Several of the data used for this calculation are far, far harder to calculate, such as the “height of a constant density atmosphere” and the “global anthropogenic carbon emissions”, yet these are readily calculated by atmospheric scientists. Because of this, I’m feeling like I calculated something wrong (someone please try to confirm these numbers). If I didn’t calculate something incorrectly, then it’s clear that the CO2 increase is not manmade (unless it comes from something other than direct emissions of CO2), and the simplicity of the calculation/results indicates that the scientists claiming global warming have been intentionally negligent, because I would assume that this is the first calculation one would do before making such claims about AGW.
Again, I would appreciate it if someone could verify these calculations or point me in a direction where someone else has, as they are very simple but if my result is correct, then it is clear that AGW is wrong AND that the scientists claiming AGW is real or grossly negligent or bold-faced liars.
Scott
Colorado State University