From the Oh noes, we’re almost doomed department:
For the first time in roughly 5 million years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could top 400 parts per million in the Northern Hemisphere next month.
What Doyle Rice is writing about is this Tweet from Scripps:
399.72 parts per million CO2 in air
April 25, 2013http://t.co/5Q2FLbb4ix— Keeling_Curve (@Keeling_curve) April 26, 2013
Interesting how a single Tweet can become an entire news story, especially since Mauna Loa data still has a ways to go. It’s almost as if Doyle can’t wait for this to happen.
Expect a plethora of gloom and doom stories next month or maybe the month after when MLO hits 400.
Note that the seasonally corrected trend number has a ways to go and Doyle in his article cites the unofficial number, not yet released, and often corrected later:
As of Tuesday, the reading was 398.44 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa.
At Scripps, they are already gearing up for the announcement, trying to visualize what 400 PPM looks like. Apparently, it looks like a fossil skull (see their story below). For the average person, they won’t notice anything, pre 400 CO2 will look exactly to them like post 400 CO2, and just like the Y2K bug, it is nothing more than a number, and nothing will happen when that threshold is crossed. Though, if there is any severe weather anywhere in the world within that month, you can bet some fool (like Joe Romm) will try to link the two events.
From Scripps:
What Does 400 ppm Look Like?
As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists look back four million years for answers on what to expect from climate
The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.
Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.
As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene.
In the oceans, fossils mark the spread of tropical and subtropical marine life northward along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. Both observations and models of the Pliocene Pacific Ocean show the existence of frequent, intense El Niño cycles—a climatic oscillation that today delivers heavy rainfall to the western U.S. causing both intense flooding but also increasing the river flows needed to sustain salmon runs. The absence of significant ocean upwelling in the warmest part of the Pliocene would have suppressed fisheries along the west coasts of the Americas, and deprived seabirds and marine mammals of food supplies. Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.
Richard Norris, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, said the concentration of CO2 is one means of comparison, but what is not comparable, and more significant, is the speed at which 400 ppm is being surpassed today.
“I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur, even though the time scales for the Pliocene warmth are different than the present,” Norris said. “The main lagging indicator is likely to be sea level just because it takes a long time to heat the ocean and a long time to melt ice. But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years. And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
Scientists can analyze the gases trapped in ice to reconstruct with high accuracy what climate was like in prehistory, but that record only goes back 800,000 years. It is trickier to estimate carbon dioxide levels before then, but in 2009, one research team reported finding evidence of carbon dioxide levels ranging between 365 and 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago. They based their finding on the analysis of carbon isotopes present in compounds made by tiny marine phytoplankton preserved in ancient ocean sediments.
That estimate made Earth’s last experience of 400 ppm a much more recent event than scientists have commonly thought. There has been broader consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than today’s but not for tens of millions of years. The assertion that Earth passed the 400 ppm mark a mere 4.5 million years ago has been supported by other analyses, many of which also concluded that the temperatures at that time were higher than previously estimated. These studies suggest that the traditional way scientists currently rate Earth’s long-term sensitivity to extra doses of CO2 might not sufficiently take into account the slower effects of climate change on the sunlight-absorbing properties of the planet, such as ice sheet melt and changes in plant cover on land.
What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. Several prominent questions remain to be answered, though, before accurate scenarios can be created. The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.
“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered planet, as the ocean gradually warms up in response to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus.
– Robert Monroe
400 ppm is a very important threshold in the CO2 levels. It ends with two zeros.
and here we are in the UK getting cooler over the last 6 years or so.
Hopefully this oil industry geologist will be onshore the day we break the 400 barrier because I intend to have a few celebratory beers.
“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered plane,
it started with our children, that didn’t pan out, now its our grandchildren,
But the global temperature rise stalled at least 16 years ago. Funny that.
Richard
Ohmygawd. That’s almost 1/6 of the CO2 level of the Jurrasic age. And we all know how man almost died out back then because of the T-Rexes hunting them in their SUVs.
What the researchers have wrong is that they interpretate the historical data in reverse order: the higher temperatures caused the increase of CO2. The reverse may give a little help to a temperature increase, but that effect is obviously not huge…
Good news is that my young trees will be huge trees in no time…
It´s not CO2 Like it´s not CO2 today but ye you have to make the story so here it is. Rice only finds a way to proof someone stupid. If you belief this grap you must be stupid.
Haven’t they just blown the whole theory out of the water? If temps were 3 degrees higher at 415 ppm and we are currently at say 400 then we should expect that rise in temperature in say a year or so when we reach 415ppm?? Or isn’t there a correlation between CO2 and temperature? Which is it.
Ah, this time it is not just our children who will suffer, but our granchildren too. Shame he did not mention the kittens, puppies and baby seals too.
What’s that? Seal like bigger oceans?? Ok, scrap the seals, but what about the kittens and puppies?
The Scripps site has not updated its “daily” curve for several days now:
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
“Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
Yet somehow all that extra forcing didn’t lead to a “tipping point” back then, and Earth’s climate doesn’t resemble that of Venus today.
What does it say for all the claims that temperatures only 2 degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels will result in “runaway global warming”? If it didn’t happen then, why would it happen now?
And what does that say for the relative magnitude of positive vs. negative feedbacks in the system?
Isn’t it obvious? It means we will be eaten by smildons.
400 PPM and no significant warming for 16 years? Tailgate Party!
That “fossil skull” is too light and evenly colored to be anything but a replica. Can you say model? 😛 But I’d bet it comes a lot closer to reality than whatever Scripps is basing its scare story about “dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean” on. After all, if it’s warmer, shouldn’t the oceans outgas CO2?
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure, at least not in this case since the partial pressure increase is so very small compared to the overall atmospheric pressure. Temperature is the most important criteria.
400ppmv is not a magical figure and does not mean sudden sky falling. CO2 levels during the past were not lower than today as research from Victorian Europe can show. Levels of over 400 and 490ppmv was measured in one place in UK using the same methods as we use today.
Corals love CO2 as they use it to build reefs. They can grow at a rate that will keep up with any sea level rises.
Scripps has a long history of scare mongering on this subject. It is the only way they get their large government grants for ”research”.
Looks like the people at Scripps aren’t familiar with this graph:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
from: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
No wonder the Pliocene age came crashing to a halt in a mere two million years! The irresponsible governments of that time didn’t realize the dangers that would irrevocably alter the planet forever. The horrors of global warming writ large and ignored has led the planet to the here and now….
…uh, nevermind…
CO2 goes down in the NH summer as all of the crop plants do their stuff – if it doesn’t reach 400 by May, it will be winter before it gets there.
WOW!!! It is up to 400 parts per million???? OH NOES!!! WE ARE DOOOOOMED!!!
Hang on?
Just a minute……Why are we not fried to a crisp already?
In fact, not only are we not fried to a crisp…. but….. Why has warming stalled for close to 2 decades now, in spite of rapidly increasing CO2?
Hmmmmmmmmm….
Could it actually be that CO2 is NOT the catastrophic danger that we had been mistakenly led to believe, after all?
If you look at the raw flask data, 400ppm has been exceeded many times at many places since Scripps started using their method. They don’t include those values when they calculate their monthly “background” averages. That 400ppm monthly average value was exceeded at an Arctic site back in the spring of 2012. Yes, it will continue to rise, but not in lock step with anthro emissions. The rate of rise is less now than it was several years ago and appears to be decreasing while man made emission rates have been increasing.
“What Does 400 ppm Look Like?” A very low concentration, for those used to working in glasshouses where CO2-level is boosted to encourage plant growth to make more human-food
It was snowing yesterday in some parts of Spain. Such a strange warming…
I still don’t understand as to why CD Meter readings are not included in local weather forecasts. What is wrong with the meteorologists anyway? Don’t they know that when there is a high reading of CO2 in their local region, that would explain why local temperatures are rising?
When it comes to runaway temperature rise, that damn CO2 isn’t reading the Scripps!
(Pardon my French and lame attempt at humor, but it IS meant to get people’s attention; besides I’ve always been a scofflaw in cases of runaway idiocy.)
Not so fast-
New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-paper-finds-co2-levels-were-higher.html
A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence. According to the authors, “The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination,” with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm.
Alejandro says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:10 am
Sunday morning, Oviedo Spain (about 20 km from the north coast) it also snowed. Its has rained every day but 3 since 22 March.
“Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.”
####
GRRRR! The referenced work contains papers that posits the changes in ocean circulation caused by geographic changes such as the closure of the isthmus of Panama as responsible for the faunal changeover. NOT global warming!
johnmarshall says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:39 am
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure, at least not in this case since the partial pressure increase is so very small compared to the overall atmospheric pressure. Temperature is the most important criteria.
Something goes wrong here: the equilibrium between absorption and desorption of CO2 from (sea)water is governed by Henry’s Law: for every temperature there is a fixed ratio between pCO2 in water and in the atmosphere above it at equilibrium. If the pCO2 (~ppmv) in the atmosphere is higher, then CO2 will move from the atmosphere into the water and reverse. The limiting factor in this case is the transfer speed, which mainly depends of wind speed for mixing air and water at the surface and movements in the oceans surface layer.
The pCO2 difference between equatorial waters and the atmosphere is about +350 microatm, while the pCO2 difference near the poles is about -250 microatm. That gives a near continuous flow of CO2 from the warm equatorial upwelling places mainly in the Pacific to the cold sink places mainly of the THC in the NE Atlantic. See further:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
and following pages.
They can keep that story handy and repeat it again next spring when we again hit 400.
There’s just one problem with all the fear mongering about atmospheric CO2. CO2 levels continue to rise (mostly from natural sources), but global temperatures have leveled off over the past 17 to 23 years (depending on which data is used) and are now on a slight decline. Where’s the correlation between CO2 and temperature? It isn’t there. Nor is it found in early geologic periods. During the late Ordovician period, for example, CO2 levels were 10 times today’s, and the planet was in the middle of a major glaciation.
We need to cut off research funding to the charlatans who continue to feed off of taxpayer subsidies and are now desperate to prop up the now-collapsing AGW scare story.
ralfellis says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:26 am
” there won’t be any kittens, puppies, or seals, because all the drought and flooding
will cause all the starving refugees to eat them all. Poor little things ;^)
“just like the Y2K bug, it is nothing more than a number, and nothing will happen when that threshold is crossed”
I’d just like to point out that this is not the best analogy, and not exactly true. While it may be true for CO2 that going from 399 to 400 isn’t going to really change anything at all, there were some legitimate issues faced with Y2K, and the reason people didn’t really feel any negative effects when we rolled over to 2000 was due to the efforts of teams of people all over the world updating things and putting procedures in order to prevent any possible glitches. Plenty of things did still go wrong, but nothing major or harmful to my knowledge (for example, a date & time sign displaying that it was January 1 1900).
Really though, the whole thing is a bit silly looking back at it… for a bunch of tech invented and code written in the 80’s and 90’s to not be ready for an event mere years in the future is pretty short-sighted.
The appropriate comparison to climate science and current policies would IMO be this:
With Y2K we knew exactly what was coming, and exactly when it was coming, so we could prepare in advance and take preventive measures.
With climate science and climate change, we have no such knowledge or security. Taking any sort of preventive measure (like abandoning fossil fuel in favor of renewables to lower CO2 output) is not only premature and rash, but could have unforeseen consequences (some have already developed, like fuel poverty in the UK and elsewhere). Also, economic studies have shown that the costs of trying to prevent disaster, rather than adapt and react, are grossly more expensive than simply dealing with whatever changes may come, as they come.
Y2K would be a sudden, instantaneous change, and there was a veritable countdown to catastrophe. Climate change is very slow and gradual – the oceans are not going to boil away when CO2 hits 400 ppm, nor will we see a “Day After Tomorrow” style ice storm with possible upcoming cooling.
I hope anyone not already on the skeptic side of things will find my analogy and argument both persuasive and reasonable. The data to support my claims is all over this site and supporting sites linked on the sidebar.
I think the Pliocene sounds rather nice!
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I do not intend this thread to be side-tracked onto the carbon cycle but I cannot allow you to mislead johnmarshall.
At April 30, 2013 at 8:28 am you say
That may – or may not – be true. But you build an edifice on the assumption that it is true.
As you say, “The limiting factor in this case is the transfer speed” but that speed may depend on biological activity near the surface: nobody knows if it is or not.
Hence, it is not possible to know if johnmarshall is right or not when he says
But you claim he is wrong because you only consider chemistry to be important and biology to be insignificant. That is an assumption; i.e. your belief.
If you had said to him that he may be wrong then I would have agreed. I think he is right.
But neither you nor me can show he is right or wrong.
Richard
Hockey Schtick says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:24 am
Not so fast-
New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age
Sorry, but stomata (index) data are not that reliable. By definition stomata data are obtained from land plants, where the stomata index (SI – stomata density divided by total cell density) of a given year is based on the average CO2 levels in the growing season of the previous year. But CO2 over land is highly variable and in average somewhat higher (40-50 ppmv) than background. That is taken into account by calibrating the SI data over the past century with direct measurements and CO2 levels in firn and ice cores. So far no problem.
The main problem is that nobody can tell you what the local/regional bias was 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 years ago, with lots of changes in landscape over the centuries in the main wind direction. Even the main wind direction may have been changed in certain periods like between the MWP and the LIA or between glacials and interglacials.
The main problem of ice cores is the averaging over a long(er) period, depending of the accumulation speed of snow at the origin of the core in the periods of interest. The Epica Dome C as used in the paper seems to have a resolution of ~150 years. That means that any sustained increase of 2 ppmv over 150 years or a 15-year peak of 20 ppmv would be detected. The stomata peak is about 150 ppmv up and down in about 50 years. That surely should show up in the ice core data if real. Because it doesn’t show up, it must be a change in the local/regional CO2 levels where the stomata data were taken…
BTW, Beck’s data suffer from the same problem: local, highly variable CO2 levels taken over land. Moreover, the stomata data over the past century refute the 1942 “peak” in Beck’s compilation, as good as other proxies do.
It’s time for Bill McKibben to think ahead a few years and register 400.org
What an incredible piece of inconsistent nonsense. The associated picture is stupidly irrelevant for a start: are we all going to find saber-toothed cats (smilodons – hat tip to ‘Pull My Finger’) in our yards?
As for the ‘pollution bank’ – what an incredibly useful notion. Nothing happening at the moment; the pollution is going into the bank. Something bad happens; it must be down to a withdrawal from the pollution bank.
I’m wondering from whose a** they pulled this nonsense.
“A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence.”
But humans were around at the end of the last ice age. If CO2 spiked to over 400 ppm back then, it had to be because of humans. Everything is the fault of humans and its all bad. Didn’t you people get the memo?
Why are they making a big deal out of co2 readings at an active volcanoe?
“But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years. And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
Remarkable. Just when you think they can’t possibly say anything dumber about climate, they do.
“Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”
Given the ratio (50:1) of CO2 in water to atmosphere we would have to burn all the coal, oil and most of the natural gas in the world to get there. And that ain’t gonna happen in 100 years.
Too late for McKibben? It’s here, today.
http://400.org/
http://400ppm.org/
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:53 am
but that speed may depend on biological activity near the surface: nobody knows if it is or not.
The local partial pressure of CO2 in seawater depends of temperature, salt content, pH and biological activity, but that doesn’t make a difference for what johnmarshal wrote:
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure
while it is the partial pressure difference which is the driving factor. Without such a difference, there wouldn’t be any net transfer (both ins and outs are equal).
The main point is that temperature gives only a relative small change in pCO2: about 16 microatm/°C. Thus with ~16 ppmv more CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and atmosphere are again in dynamic equilibrium, if the average ocean temperature surface temperature increases with 1°C, all other things being equal.
But things are not equal: we are currently some 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium. Thus there must be a net CO2 flux from the atmosphere into the oceans. That flux depends of the partial pressure differences between the atmosphere and the local ocean surface and wind speed.
johnmarshall says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:39 am
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure, at least not in this case since the partial pressure increase is so very small compared to the overall atmospheric pressure. Temperature is the most important criteria.
Temperature is important but the relationship between pCO2 and pAtm is not relevant. The ratio between [CO2] in the water and pCO2 in the atmosphere is governed by Henry’s Law, at any given temperature an increase in pCO2 will cause an increase in [CO2] until equilibrium is reached. The Henry’s Law coefficient is dependent on T.
Here it is in equation form:
Henry’s law (at constant temperature) is given by:
p=kH*c
where p is the partial pressure of the solute in the gas above the solution, c is the concentration of the solute in solution and kH is a constant with the dimensions of pressure/concentration. The constant, which is known as the Henry’s law constant, depends on the solute, the solvent and the temperature. Note that atmospheric pressure has no effect.
kH for CO2 dissolved in water at 298 K is:
carbon dioxide (CO2) : 29.41 L·atm/mol
The temperature dependance of kH is given by:
kH(T)=kH(298)*(2400(1/T-1/298)) =29.41*(2400(1/T-1/298))
For CO2 in sea water there is the further complication that dissolved CO2 also reacts reversibly with water to form H2CO3 which is in equilibrium with HCO3- which is in turn in equilibrium with CO3–. However, if there’s an increase in pCO2 then [CO2] will change and the other equilibria will adjust to compensate. Ultimately absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere is governed by Henry’s law and is directly proportional to pCO2.
dp says:
Well 400ppm.org is there but I saw 400.org and it’s just a placeholder. Still up for grabs.
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_month.png
The above graph shows we’ve already passed 400 several times. Nothing happened.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:19 am
“What the researchers have wrong is that they interpretate the historical data in reverse order: the higher temperatures caused the increase of CO2. The reverse may give a little help to a temperature increase, but that effect is obviously not huge…”
Thanks Ferd for reminding us of the glaring mis-representation in ALGore”s Crockumentary.
The correlation he showed between Temps and atmospheric CO2 was a lie.
In fact, CO2 rise lagged temperature rise because as ocean water warms it out-gasses CO2(releases it to the atmosphere).
Warm ocean water can’t hold as much CO2 as cold ocean water.( a fact obscured by charlatan warmistas.)
Gore tried to say the CO2 rise came first, implying causation.
Gore knew he was lying.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re the answer to me you provide at April 30, 2013 at 9:28 am. NO!
You said
And I replied
You now say
And you do not address the “transfer speed”.
So, which is most important? The “transfer speed” or the “change in pCO2”?
I don’t see how one can be “the main point” when the other is “the limiting factor”.
Or does it depend on how the wind blows?
Richard
I am enthralled. Now we have peer reviewed tweets.
The report showing 43,000 dead sheep in Northern Ireland snowdrifts and delayed Spring also has a lot of zeroes.
Could it be that co2 rise followed temperature rise? If not then what caused the co2 rise?
A tidbit about the history of CO2 predictions.
The 1957 yearbook of the Americana Encyclopedia in the 3 page article on “Meteorology And Climatology” had this paragraph under the Climatology heading:
“A recomputation of the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide helps substantiate the belief that changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can bring about considerable temperature variations. For example, a doubling of the atmospheric content of CO2 would lead to a surface-temperature rise of 6.5 degrees F.”
The article was written by H. E. Landsberg, a long time Director, Office of Climatology, U. S. Weather Bureau. Landsberg was a regular writer for the Americana Encyclopedia as well as other short climate publications. From this statement, you can see the beginnings of the modern push on the CO2 dogma.
Phil.:
re your post at April 30, 2013 at 9:35 am.
Ferdinand is here so you could left discussion of the carbon cycle to him because he knows what he is talking about.
Your calculations are meaningless because, for example, they ignore effect of pH.
The equilibrium CO2 concentrations of atmosphere and ocean surface are dependent on the alkalinity of ocean surface layer. A change of average pH of only 0.1 would be more than sufficient to have caused more than all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. And such a change is far, far too small for it to be discernible.
Could such a change have happened? Yes, and the reason for it would probably have ended centuries ago.
Undersea volcanoes release sulphur ions which are carried by the passing water. The thermohaline circulation carries the sulphur until it reaches ocean surface layer centuries later. The sulphur ions then reduce the alkalinity of the ocean surface layer.
Did a variation in undersea volcanic activity happen centuries ago? Nobody knows.
Is that the reason for recent rise in atmospheric CO2 or not? Nobody can know.
Phil., that is only one of the reasons why your calculations are meaningless nonsense.
Richard
ralfellis says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:26 am
Ah, this time it is not just our children who will suffer, but our granchildren too. Shame he did not mention the kittens, puppies and baby seals too.
What’s that? Seal like bigger oceans?? Ok, scrap the seals, but what about the kittens and puppies?
—————
After the Giant Crabs finish eating all the soft shell oysters, they’ll be going after the baby seals. Mark my word.
I find it ironic that in the same USA Today, there is an article stating how this April has been the coldest and snowiest on record.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/04/29/cold-snowy-spring-weather/2121737/
Of course weather is not climate… unless it is warm weather. /sarc
Wow! CO2 is up over 42% from ‘pre-industrial levels’! (I wonder how they measured THAT with pre-industrial instruments back in the day…)
There has been no 42% increase in global temperature.
It was about 290 Kelvins back then, +/- 20; its about 290 Kelvins now, +/- 20.
If CO2 drives temperature, I would expect a 42% increase – to about 410 Kelvins.
So “Where’s the Heat?!”
Wouldn’t adding more CO2 to the atmosphere cause global cooling? CO2 is not as an effective greenhouse gas as other gasses such as water vapor or methane. If you’re replacing a methane molecule for instance with a CO2 molecule wouldn’t this have a cooling effect? You can’t have more than one million parts per million in the atmosphere. If you add 1PPM of one element 1PPM of another element gets bumped off the list, if the molecule that gets knocked out is a more effective greenhouse gas… just sayin”.
So when it gets to 415 parts per million and global mean temps stay around 14C and the North Pole is still there in Septembers and there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise then will they re-consider AGW??? This paper should be kept close by for that day. It’s just like a prediction.
Since we have passed the safe limit of 350ppm and are now at the dangerous 400ppm the effect has ravaged Saudi Arabia with more heat and drought.
Here are more signs of early Spring in warm Spain……..one of the world’s most popular holiday resorts.
This too is a sure sign of global warming.
I am just surprised that GISS has not adjusted the Pliocene CO2 levels down. They do it with temperatures all the time.
Greedy Academics Thumb There noses at Poor
What does 400 ppm Look Like
“Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.
As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene. ”
So,it appears that there will likely to be more parts of the planet that can grow food, especially in parts of the world that have are currently experiencing poverty and food shortage.
But I guess it’s OK for some to say that agricultural technology will not be able to improve, even though we know that more CO2 produces more agricultural growth.
Today, the temperate and equatorial parts of the world can grow food quite well except for areas where drought appears. If there is more moisture in the air, there should be less drought.
With some slight warming perhaps there will be more areas toward polar regions that can grow food, and, ultimately, the result will be more food and less starvation throughout the planet, especially, in poverty stricken areas, such as Africa.
It appears to me the only people shouting armageddon are greedy academics who care absolutely zip for the poor, who constantly search for more grants to increase their own wealth, knowing that the poor only get poorer.
“For the first time in roughly 5 million years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could top 400 parts per million in the Northern Hemisphere next month.”
Horrors! So what did they do 5 million years ago to prevent catastrophe and pass us our current best-of-all-possible-worlds climate?
Nothing, you say???
Well, then, that’s exactly what we should do! Who’s with me?
Richard, you might want to check your chemistry book. Phil is correct. Also the PH of ocean water is a complex thing with the salinity, CO2 concentration, and calcium hydroxide concentration being determining factors.
Retired John and Phil– I think Richard’s point is that, sure, in a lab that may be true but out in the wild with a number of unknown and/or ill-defined or understood processes going on, particularly biological ones, not so much. I’m no scientist but that’s what I understood him to be addressing.
Retired Engineer John:
At April 30, 2013 at 11:54 am you say to me
Errr, No!.
Phil. is wrong. Please check your chemistry book.
I am fully aware of the carbonate buffer. But if you add extra sulphur ions to the ocean surface layer then you reduce its pH. If your chemistry text book says otherwise then get a better book.
Richard
Is there any chance that those morons become extinct at 400 ppm? /sarc wish
“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered planet”
======
Just about everything in the article sounded much better than today. Just like conditions are much better today than they were for our grandparents. Most of our grandparents lived during a time of two world wars and the great depression. And built fantastic modern cities and fed the world in the process.
My grandparents were born before the invention of antibiotics, cars, planes, plastics, electric lights, television and the radio. Manual labor was the main employment and the primary industry was farming. Many people alive today have never worked a job involving manual labor and have never been to a farm.
Every plant and animal on earth is descended from ancestors that survived much higher CO2 and much warmer temperatures. They survived, so will our grand children and their grandchildren, if climate is all they have to worry about.
Compared to the risk of economic collapse, disease, famine and war; climate is a walk in the park. The only reason anyone is worried about climate is because we are largely unaware of the other problems, having not seen them first hand. Our grandparents for certain saw them and understood the risks that the current generation has largely forgotten.
Doctor Richard Lindzen discovered that there are diminishing returns concerning GHG induced temperature increases once CO2 has doubled.
And we should also be cognizant of the fact that the global population is aging; it’s rate of increases is decreasing; and that as a conseuence, the consumption of food, energy, and consumer goods will begin to steadily decrease. That is, we are reaching a plateau of CO2 increases (anthropogenic), and we will begin decreasing concentrations (probably within the next 40-50 years) as the global population peaks and then begins to fall.
Do these guys ever look out the window???
Scripps is just another AGW enabler, no longer deserving of being taken seriously as a scientific institution.
Onward and upward..
TOWARDS 700ppm !!!
Let the Earth flourish.
redcords says:
April 30, 2013 at 9:44 am
“Well 400ppm.org is there but I saw 400.org and it’s just a placeholder. Still up for grabs.”
Not a placeholder and not up for grabs; but you can surely buy it from the owner as he wants to earn money.
What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. ……..Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.
In the last 16 or 17 years when temperatures have flattened on several data sets, the rise in CO2 is no longer accelerating. So the “Keeling Curve” is no longer a “Curve”. See the slopes below. They are virtually identical over the last 17 years as over the last 9 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/trend
In addition, the slopes are just under 2 ppm/year. At that rate, if it stays that way, it will take about 300 years to go from 400 ppm to 1000 ppm.
JP says:
April 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“And we should also be cognizant of the fact that the global population is aging; it’s rate of increases is decreasing; and that as a conseuence, the consumption of food, energy, and consumer goods will begin to steadily decrease.”
Why? Even when the number of humans plateaus or starts to decline slightly I would expect resource consumption per capita to go up, as automation makes products ever cheaper. I know the Malthusians must hate this and will do their very best to stop us from having it, but they control only the broke nations of the West.
Science fantasy at its best.
I’m pretty sure that’s a walrus skull rather than a smilodon.
I was very afraid and constipated when it reached the perilous 350ppm and found myself loosing bowel control. Now it is about to hit 400ppm I am no longer afraid as I have flushed my bowels and have no **** left. Despite this and profuse flushing/use of Fabreze all I can smell is….
/sarc
One note of hope: “… that damn CO2 isn’t reading the Scripps!” [Rocky Road @0819]
And 97% of voters will not be reading that article or any “scientific” articles. They’ll read about basketball players and Hollywood and the like. The school teachers and other water carriers for the Cult of Climatology may use it, but, they have already reached (and often exceeded) their audience’s max brainwashing saturation point.
Thus, net effect of article: ZERO.
No, we are not there, yet. But, the tide has turned. It is only a matter of time until the S.S. AGW will be lying high and dry, a barnacle-encrusted relic. Flying from her mast will be a tattered and faded pennant that reads: “Sc==ps”.
In the meantime, continue to engage the enemy with all the devastating artillery so masterfully argued by all you TRUE SCIENTISTS above, and try not too pay too much attention to the propaganda piling up; baloney isn’t a sturdy barricade. Baghdad Bob can holler “We are weeeening!” as many times as he likes, but the truth is marching on. You wonderful scientist-warriors have the enemies of truth on the defensive. VICTORY IS ASSURED (in the AGW Battle).
GO WUWT Team!
Child to parent as they walk up the beach: “I wonder what “S – c – something -something – p – s” meant.”
Parent: Dunno. “Scamps”?
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 9:51 am
So, which is most important? The “transfer speed” or the “change in pCO2″?
I don’t see how one can be “the main point” when the other is “the limiting factor”.
Or does it depend on how the wind blows?
It starts with the pCO2 difference between the atmosphere and the oceans. If both are equal, then there is no force to push more CO2 either side, no matter how windy it is. pCO2 in air is simply the CO2 level corrected for water vapor presence. pCO2 in water is temperature, salinity, pH and total carbon dependent and the latter is influenced by biolife.
If there is a (huge) pCO2 difference, like at the equator and near the poles, wind is the dominant factor, as diffusion is very slow for CO2 transfer from the surface to the rest of the “mixed layer”, that is the upper few hundred meters of the oceans. That layer is mixed by wind, waves and convection.
Thus it is a mix of pCO2 difference and wind speed which dominates the transfer of CO2 in/out the oceans, hardly influenced by changes in global temperature, which plays a minor role. Which was the reason I reacted on johnmarshall.
Further:
A change of average pH of only 0.1 would be more than sufficient to have caused more than all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. And such a change is far, far too small for it to be discernible.
Agreed, but there is a simple way to know which way out it is: If you add a strong(er) acid to a (bi)carbonate solution, CO2 is set free, but that is at the cost of the total quantity of carbon in the solution. That is measurable as DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon, that is CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in seawater. A few million samples taken by regular ship surveys + a few continuous sampling series at Bermuda and Hawaii all show that DIC is increasing everywhere in all oceans. Thus the CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans not reverse.
Ferdinand,
Thank you for that explanation. My follow-up question: do you think there is a problem due to the recent rise in CO2? Please keep in mind that CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past — during times when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity.
Just as well Hansen and Mann were around during the Pliocene age to stop all the humans burning fossil fuels otherwise we may have been toast!
Around here, CO2 hits =>425ppm every day. When the sun goes down.
I know what 400ppm looks like.
Flora growing faster than I can keep up with.
Mowers needing attention. Back-ache.
And this year, the ‘wet’ season has been a bit drier than usual …
1,000 years might be too near. I am no peak oiler but reserves might be very low in 500 years time. Apart from that fertility rates are falling…..fast. Finally, I very much doubt we will be using much in the way of fossil fuels at the end of this century. Co2 this century will not be a problem. Just my 2¢.
‘At Scripps, they are already gearing up for the announcement, trying to visualize what 400 PPM looks like. Apparently, it looks like a fossil skull (see their story below).’
Um, is there some sort of ‘scientist competition?’ Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about, or even considering, a competition regarding professional achievement. In the deadly carbon, catastrophe, science, whatever department a competition regarding professional achievement would be…How do I put this?…really, rather…ok, my stomach’s starting to hurt.
No, I’m talking about a scientist competition for, say, the scientist you’d most like to spend the rest of your life with. Or, maybe, the scientist you think would be the best husband material. Or, better yet, the scientist you’d most like to father your children.
I mean, look at that guy in the picture. He’d leave the competitors hoping to even get close to last place. I mean, is he photogenic or what? And look at that perfect science fashion sense; the oh so subtle, virtually disappearing (but a scientist’s gotta have em), frameless glasses; the obligatory, but oh so well trimmed, beard; the rolled up sleeves; and, most of all, that absolutely killer, Indiana Jones style expedition hat. He’s got it down! Now, look at the way he holds that scientificky looking double Sabre Toothed Plasticosaurus. You’d think it was his own damn child. The loving, thoughtful gaze. The proper tooth support hold. The tenderness. And, if that’s not enough, look at that meticulous laboratory; the friendly, inviting, wood framed wall cabinets; the obligatory homey photo on the wall. Geez, there’s even flowers for chrissake! Is this guy long term mate material or what? Damn, he’s got his moves down.
I mean, there’s gotta be some sorta scientist as husband material contest going on here because I cannot see any other purpose for such a staged, vapid picture.
By the way after 11 years of stagnant temps they have started to fall in the last 4 years. That 400ppm is doing wonders for global warming. Imagine the red faces if we go into continued cooling? How dumb will the Scripps authors look like? Time will tell I suppose.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/26/joe-bastardi-on-global-temperature-the-fall-is-very-very-plain-to-see-youll-see-this-trend-continue/
Gosh. It used to be 300ppm, now it’s 400ppm. So 1 in 10,000 parts of our atmosphere changed form something? to CO2. All the while, H20 vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, is about 20,000 ppm averaged around the globe.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thanks for your post at April 30, 2013 at 2:59 pm.
That is a good answer.
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on one’s view), and as usual, we disagree.
There are two issues; viz. the pCO2 issue and the pH issue.
I address each in turn.
I return to my point which I first made and you have not mentioned. You are considering only the equilibrium dissolution rate of CO2 in the water. As I said, that ignores effects of biota in the ocean surface layer. And nobody knows how that affects the exchange rate across the surface layer. Make an assumption as one wants and one gets the result one wants. You are assuming the biota have no affect. I am assuming nothing and so I say I don’t know because nobody can know in the absence of information.
So, I repeat what I said in my first comment on this matter
Then there is the matter of the effect of possibly varying pH of the ocean surface layer resulting from additional sulphur ions.
You say
Again, you assume what is not known can be ignored.
Let us assume the wholly inadequate sampling of the ocean surface layer is correctly indicating that dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) is increasing in the ocean surface layer. Then that indicates the layer is net acquiring DIC. But that does NOT indicate “the CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans not reverse”.
The CO2 flux is either in or out of the oceans depending on the time of year. The net flux between the two over a year probably is into the ocean, but so what? If the equilibrium is being set by the changing pH then the annual net flux would be into the ocean because the anthropogenic CO2 is added to the atmosphere. But, importantly,
the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be THE SAME whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed because that concentration is set by the changed equilibrium between the atmosphere and ocean CO2 concentrations which results from the altered pH.
Almost all the CO2 is in the ocean.
In other words, you cite dubious DIC data, but if that data does indicate an increase in DIC in the ocean surface layer then that does NOT reject the possibility of altered ocean surface layer pH having caused the change to atmospheric CO2.
Please note that I am not saying the altered pH is the cause of the rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration. I am saying it is an example of a possible natural reason for the rise.
I do not know if the rise is anthropogenic or natural in part or in whole. And anyone who thinks they know is mistaken.
Richard
who cares?…..
I hope everyone realizes how small 400 ppm is….
…and realizes how it got that low in the first place
dbstealey says:
April 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Ferdinand,
Thank you for that explanation. My follow-up question: do you think there is a problem due to the recent rise in CO2? Please keep in mind that CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past — during times when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity.
Certainly not in the foreseeable future. If the sensitivity for 2xCO2 is low, as it seems more and more to be, then up to a CO2 doubling, most effects would be beneficial for plant growth in general, and more areas set free for agriculture. Beyond that is an open question, as that depends on many factors like real (cheap) alternatives for fossil fuels. Little we know what the inventivity of humans will bring in the future…
I always remember a very old book in the library of the small village I lived, called something like “new inventions”, from around 1900, that described a lot of things that weren’t yet on the market that moment, but were ready to be commercialised. Things like a “dust sucking broom”, nowadays common known as a vacuum cleaner… If you look at the (r)evolution since 1900 or since 1950 or since 2000 on all sectors of life and technique, not to be forgotten what computers/chips have made possible, I am quite optimistic about the future of my children…
Tom J @1534 on 4/30/13 – I mean, look at that guy in the picture. … is he photogenic or what? … well trimmed, beard … look at the way he holds that scientificky looking double Sabre Toothed Plasticosaurus. … look at that meticulous laboratory .. obligatory homey photo on the wall. …
I mean, there’s gotta be some sorta scientist as husband material contest going on here … .”
LOL, Tom! Heh, heh.
Well, maybe you’re right. Given how MIXED UP climastrologists are about correlations and cause and effect and the like, he just may BE aiming to be the prize in the Scripps Win a Husband Raffle. They’ll have to find some atypical women to buy raffle tickets, though. Oh, sure, there are women who LIKE beards and who would be delighted to hang one of the cattle skulls they found in the lower 40 on the wall… but, they had better make those raffle tickets pretty pricey or Scripps won’t even break even, given the cost of renting the back room at Joe’s Eats.
************* or, maybe…. he’s on the set of his new Cooking with Mike (stage name only, of course) show: “Today I’ll be showing you how you can make a fine soup by just using this skull and a pound of Galapagos lizard. (his signature exclamation) We’ll season it with … you’ll find all my recipes in the East Anglia Cookbook!”
A bit off topic, and just for fun:
Fat Global Warming (HD) : Foamy The Squirrel http://www.youtube.com/jimathers
Huh? just before “(his signature exclamation)” I attempted a little joke based on Emer — il (in case this name is Spam material, too) and typed: BAAA N NG ! with on either side of it. I have got to get the manual for HOW TO POST (including how to bold and do lots of neat stuff others are able to do!). I’m in that Spam bin a lot. My apologies, moderators. THANK YOU for your patience while I try to figure out what’s okay and what is not okay to write here.
Janice Moore on April 30, 2013 at 4:14 pm
************* or, maybe…. he’s on the set of his new Cooking with Mike (stage name only, of course) show: “Today I’ll be showing you how you can make a fine soup by just using this skull and a pound of Galapagos lizard. (his signature exclamation) We’ll season it with … you’ll find all my recipes in the East Anglia Cookbook!”
Oh my god! Climate Change is even affecting gourmet cooking! What next!
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm
You are considering only the equilibrium dissolution rate of CO2 in the water. As I said, that ignores effects of biota in the ocean surface layer.
As I said, biological life influences the total (inorganic) carbon in the waters, that is by turning inorganic carbon into organic carbon and vv. when they die or are eaten. What is net removed from the inorganic carbon molecules, changes the pCO2 of the ocean water. Thus the pCO2 takes into account the effect of biological life in the oceans surface.
The pCO2 of ocean waters is measured repeatedly by regular ship surveys and the results are used to estimate the regional fluxes in/out the oceans based on pCO2 differences and average wind speed. See:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be THE SAME whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed because that concentration is set by the changed equilibrium between the atmosphere and ocean CO2 concentrations which results from the altered pH.
Richard, that is impossible: you can’t increase CO2 in the atmosphere and reduce DIC by a reduced pH in the oceans and at the same time increase DIC in the oceans from the increase in the atmosphere. It is either of the two, not both at the same time.
What confuses me is that CO2 is a heat trapping gas.
Okay, I’ll buy that.
CO2 is evenly distributed where ever they measure it.
Okay, why not? But….
Why is trapping heat in Florida different from trapping heat in Europe.
Why isn’t the earth heating up the same all over?
If CO2 holds heat shouldn’t it do it everywhere?
Or are my assumptions wrong?
cn
Robert A. Taylor — “… I’m going to go eat a doughnut and kill the planet.” LOVED IT! That was SO FUNNY!!
richardscourtney says:
But the global temperature rise stalled at least 16 years ago. Funny that.
funny that…you’re wrong — the oceans have warmed strongly in that time.
that doesn’t occur without an energy imbalance.
Chuck Nolan says:
Why is trapping heat in Florida different from trapping heat in Europe.
Why isn’t the earth heating up the same all over?
If CO2 holds heat shouldn’t it do it everywhere?
Or are my assumptions wrong?
yes, your assumptions are wrong.
there are still regional and geographical influences on climate.
really — you didn’t know this??
Re: Stan W. @1642 “… the oceans have warmed strongly in that time.
that doesn’t occur without an energy imbalance.”
So, that means the Sun must have more energy than the Earth. Thanks for that, Mr. W..
@Janice Moore
data on solar irradiance is readily available:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
please avail yourself of it, and adjust your beliefs accordingly.
… and ????
To put this in perspective, 10,000 PPM CO2 is %1 CO2. According to indoor air levels, 5,000 PPM CO2 is OK, you could survive at 10,000 PPM, but many complain of headache and don’t feel well, so 5,000 PPM is given as the upper limit for indoor CO2.
So to reach the indoor limit of 5,000 PPM, the CO2 would have to increase 12.5 times from what it is now. Given that plants like more CO2, we’d be better of if the level were around 1,000 to 2,000 PPM.
If CO2 were dropping to under 150 PPM, I’d worry OR if it was going above 5,000 PPM, I’d worry, but our great great great great great great great grandchildren won’t even be close to that point.
I am shocked, shocked, that none of you has suggested one obvious solution to the CO2 problem: the immediate banning of all carbonated beverages. Why, every time you pop the top on a ginger ale, CO2 levels in your home must zoom! No doubt thousands of tons of CO2 are liberated each year from drinks that we certainly have no need of. All sodas, beers and sparkling wines need to be banished from the earth, with the possible exception of one bottle of Dom Perignon for Al Gore to celebrate his next billion.
Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 4:52 pm
richardscourtney says:
But the global temperature rise stalled at least 16 years ago. Funny that.
funny that…you’re wrong — the oceans have warmed strongly in that time. that doesn’t occur without an energy imbalance.
The surface temperatures have not changed since March, 1997. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend
So since the surface did not warm in over 16 years, are you suggesting the deep ocean warmed without the surface warming? And if so, how many degrees are we talking about? And I would like degrees C or K but not billions and billions of joules that sound like a lot but are not even measurable. I would like a temperature change to be able to judge whether “ warmed strongly” is accurate.
My grandchildren are here now. They enjoyed a very nice autumn day out yesterday at the beach. What is the radically different bit that we missed?
richardscourtney says April 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Please check the Feely paper. Despite all the talk of temperature being a driver for the absorption of CO2, it says ” The average partial pressure CO2 of the global ocean is about 7 micro atm lower than the atmosphere, which is the driving force for uptake by the ocean”. Note the word average. If the temperature of the Ocean’s surface were the determing factor – the surface temperature has been close to constant greater than ten years – the absorption of CO2 by the ocean would have stopped and we would be seeing much greater CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
@werner — why do you think delta(T) is the relevant parameter, and not the change in heat content?
liquid is not the same as gas, i’m sure you will agree.
werner:
“So since the surface did not warm in over 16 years, are you suggesting the deep ocean warmed without the surface warming?”
yes, i am. that’s what the data clearly shows.
do you not accept the data?
Stan W says:
“that’s what the data clearly shows.”
Post your data here.
@Bob diaz —
are you honestly suggesting the greenhouse warming is of no threat until humans actually keel over dead from CO2 poisoning?
please confirm. thx.
@dbstealey:
any intelligent reader here should know of this data — why don’t you?:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Werner, the joules required to heat a liter of air one degree centigrade is less than the joules required to heat a liter of water one degree centigrade. The missing heat if transferred to the atmosphere is actually quite large. I believe the difference is about 4,000 joules for water and about 50 joules for air. If Ternberth is correct then the transmission of this stored energy to the atmosphere is the climate inertia to which others refer. It is not a trivial question. Increased temp gradients come to mind. Enso seems to be one of the mechanisms through which “excess” heat is shed. The other possibility is that the measured increase is quite small and I haven’t seen error bars for the estimates (and not all the data are actual measurements but instead are estimates). As far as I can see there are legitimate questions to be answered and one of them is “Is there any missing heat or is it a measurement artifact?”
That is a great point! Quite a problem you point out for the AGW kooks using a proportional measurement like PPM. So it begs the question, and I sure hope that Steve Mosher will step in here and address it – this 100 PPM of C02 that humans have allegedly added since the Little Ice Age, what gases were replaced or diluted? It’s a killer question because almost everything else is a more potent “greenhouse gas” particularly the most likely candidate, water vapor. Good job Elmer! And BTW, how’s that extra 100 PPM treating you in Minnesota?
Other random thoughts, if we allegedly have witnessed a CO2 rise since humans began keeping themselves warm without clear-cutting entire forests, well, has anyone looked back to determine what may have been happening oh say, ~800 years ago? You know, that ~800 year lag of rising temps to rising CO2?
Wikipedia says we were in the Medieval Warm Period, running from AD 950 to 1250. So if that ~800 years was a solid estimate, CO2 increase might slow down or even reverse by mid-century. But here’s the rub, naturally the AGW kooks will step in and state that the slowdown is because of their tireless mitigation through Windmills and Solar Cells and Kyoto protocols. They always got an excuse.
Finally, how many others feel like I do in anticipating an “oops” moment when Scientists discover they have been counting CO2 PPM incorrectly, both from Hawaii and in the ice cores? Just a gut feeling so far, nothing I would call rock solid evidence. It has more to do with the utter sloppiness and unprofessionality that the AGW pseudo-Scientists have inflicted upon the rest of the world. Exhibit-A is the “Warmlist”, a true testimony to their insanity.
“are you honestly suggesting the greenhouse warming is of no threat until humans actually keel over dead from CO2 poisoning?” I believe the keel over level is around 70,000 ppm or a concentration of about 7%. .05% might make some people drowsy but is not life threatening. At 5,000 ppm most of the GWP of the trace gas would be gone as the CO2 window would be shut. I think Bob was referring to its potential as a pollutant at those levels.
@steven_hales:
care to prove that 5000 ppm of CO2 closes the CO2 window?
real math, real science — i bet you can’t do it.
in fact, i bet you can’t even come close.
Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm
@werner — why do you think delta(T) is the relevant parameter, and not the change in heat content?
Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 6:44 pm
werner:
“So since the surface did not warm in over 16 years, are you suggesting the deep ocean warmed without the surface warming?”
yes, i am. that’s what the data clearly shows.
do you not accept the data?
Sigh! I specifically asked for “And I would like degrees C or K but not billions and billions of joules”. And what do I get from four responses? I get references that talk about 10^22 Joules!
Since you did not give me a temperature change, I will quote Dr. Spencer: “Because of the immense heat capacity of the deep ocean, the magnitude of deep warming in Scenario 3 might only be thousandths of a degree.” This is from:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/
If you have a different temperature change, please let me know. For argument sake, I will accept the data and agree that the deep ocean warmed from 3.000 C to 3.003 C. My reaction is: “So what?” That extra 0.003 C cannot somehow accumulate and be taken out of the deep ocean and drive our atmospheric temperature through the roof. Heat goes from where the temperature is highest to where it is lowest. That is why “delta(T) is the relevant parameter“. You said “the oceans have warmed strongly in that time”. If the oceans continue warming at this pace, it will take 64,000 years to reach 15 C and be able to impact the atmospheric temperature.
(For the math, I equated 0.003/16 = 12/x since the 0.003 is over 16 years and the 12 is what has to be added to 3 to get 15. If you do not agree with my assumptions and have different numbers, let me know what your number of years is for a rise of the deep ocean to 15 C.)
Stan W.,
Got something current? Because your source says: “…we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009…”
That is flatly contradicted by the actual ARGO data.
And your second source only reports on 0 – 700 metres. That is not the deep ocean.
The data you posted does not show deep ocean heating. Want to try again? Or are you ready to admit that you don’t have deep ocean heating data? Because you haven’t posted any yet.
@werner —
it’s been said elsewhere that you are a “professor”
if so, then you should certainly understand that the ocean is huge, and the relevant parameter for energy imbalance is heat content, not delta(T).
do you really not understand the difference?
#@dbstealey:
do you really not understand that the ARGO data is only of recent origin?
tsk tsk….
Stan W,
All you have done so far is make baseless assertions. Your last comment is intended to obfuscate the fact that you have no data showing deep ocean heating. All you have is a religious belief system. That is not good enough for the internet’s “Best Science” site.
I posted actual ARGO data showing ocean cooling. “Recent origin” means nothing. It is actual ARGO data. You have no testable data showing deep ocean heating. If I am wrong, post your data here.
Steven Hales says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm
The missing heat if transferred to the atmosphere is actually quite large.
I agree that it is huge. Applying mct for air and the ocean, the oceans have 1100 times as much heat for each degree. So if the 0.003 C from my previous post went to the air, the air temperature would go up by 0.003 x 1100 = 3.3 C. But as I mentioned, this cannot happen. While El Ninos do warm the air, they do not take heat from all the oceans in the world but only from a small portion.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“What the researchers have wrong is that they interpret the historical data in reverse order: the higher temperatures caused the increase of CO2. The reverse may give a little help to a temperature increase, but that effect is obviously not huge…”
=========================================
Exactly right. The warmer global temperatures caused the rise in CO2, just like today.
Infrared out decreases at a decreasing rate as concentrations increase once 5000 ppm is reached the net effect of the next doubling is less than 2 deg K ceteris paribus. I would say the window is effectively shut at 5000 ppm.
Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:47 pm
@werner –
it’s been said elsewhere that you are a “professor”
if so, then you should certainly understand that the ocean is huge, and the relevant parameter for energy imbalance is heat content, not delta(T).
do you really not understand the difference?
We clarified the first point in the previous article. In case you missed it, I have an engineering degree from over 40 years ago and taught high school physics and chemistry for over 40 years.
As for your other points, my previous post was published 7:44 and you posted something at 7:47 so I am not sure if you read my 7:44 post.
But to answer your question above, I know exactly what the difference is. And in my opinion, warmists want to use 10^22 Joules to make it sound scary and hide the 0.003 C increase that no one would bat an eye at.
Werner Brozek,
IMHO you are a professor of physics, whether that is your official title or not. Anyone who teaches physics for 40 years has a thorough understanding of the subject.
I would be interested in Stan W’s C.V. Post it for us here, Stan. For the sake of credibility. ☺
so, werner, you’re saying that you DON’T understand the difference between heat content and delta(T)?
that right?
i don’t see how a professor of physics cannot understand the difference, and how the heat content number leads to an energy imbalance. it’s simple math….
Stan the dense didn’t notice that Werner translated the increase in ocean heat content into potential atmospheric warming which indicates he understands the difference between joules and deltaT.
Stan W says:
“so, werner, you’re saying that you DON’T understand the difference between heat content and delta(T)? that right?”
Stan, cut ‘n’ paste Werner’s words. That way we will know that you’re not erecting your usual strawan argument.
And post your C.V. while you’re at it…
…IF you even have one.
@dbstealey —
i am on to you.
when you can’t counter the science, you get personal.
so post your own c.v. first.
i know you won’t.
you make it too easy.
As of Apr 9, CER carbon credits per Bloomberg were 3 cents per ton. As of Apr 23, the price has fallen to a penny. LONDON, April 24 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The price of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) hit 1 euro cent on Wednesday morning, rendering near worthless U.N.-backed carbon credits that were once valued at more than 20 euros. http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2322100
This is a carbon announcement that leaves me somewhat breathless.
onlyme, sweetie:
the price is 3 EUROS/t, not 3 cents per tonne.
do you understand the difference?
do you understand that the price is completely dependent on government policies?
you’d have to be an idiot to invest in such a controlled market… especially for you, who is off by a factor of about 100… ever hear of trading bait?
Perhaps, Stan W, you might follow the link and read the quotation from the pointcarbon website. Seems to me that 1 euro cent on Wednesday means one cent but then i bow to your superior knowledge.
“CERs for delivery this month were unchanged at 4 cents a ton after dropping to record-low 3 cents on April 4, according ICE data. ” from the link at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/un-emission-credits-surge-as-developers-delay-carbon-cut-claims.html
Stan w,
I am happy to post my C.V., which I have posted numerous times before:
I worked for 30 years in a large Metrology Lab, designing, calibrating, and repairing weather-related instruments for the federal government. We were provided with all the latest peer-reviewed data from relevant soruces, and we watched as the scare du jour changed from global cooling, to global warming.
I am 65 now and retired, but I see the current scare in perspective — which you probably do not. So that is my personal Curriculum Vitae.
What is yours?
@onlyme —
you are off by a factor of 100.
please correct, and get back in the game….
@dbstealey —
and the link to your c.v. is?
@onlyme —
you are off by a factor of 100.
this disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
goodbye.
Stan W,, perhaps you would report the errors to ICE, as well as to Bloomberg and Reuters which are the ones issuing the news reports on this. Personally I will stick to the Reuters and Bloomberg reports.
I presume clicking the links provided, given your responses, is beyond your capability, but certainly a person of your evident skills and immense fund of knowledge surpassing that of the collective manpower at both Reuters and Bloomberg will be able to locate a way of contacting the relevant desk at each, and make sure they issue corrections to their reports.
@onlyme —
just answer the questions put to you here.
i don’t know who “ICE” or “Bloombert” or “Reuters” is.
i do know when someone is avoiding a question.
and you’re doing it now.
“… rendering near worthless U.N.-backed carbon credits that were once valued at more than 20 euros… .” [on Lyme 4/30/13 @ 9:09PM]
THAT is evidence!
AGW is sooooo OVER!
(except for a few of the increasingly irrational, diehard, “Tora, tora, tora” gang, holed up in a cave somewhere in the South Pacific…….. still broadcasting propaganda via their walkie talkies…………. —- let’s listen in: … shhhgreeegghhkwwaawk…. “Neanderthals!”……. wrehhhhggggrrrrsshheeee….. I am on to you…. sweetie….. ewirjiwwhgaaassshhhhrrk….”Neanderthals!”…… )
Nor do you know how to spell Bloomberg, as in Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com
Reuters is Reuters news service at http://www.reuters.com/
For your information, ICE is https://www.theice.com/ which is an international futures trading exchange aka Intercontinental Exchange, where the UN backed CER’s are traded. Now you know.
Ladies and Gentlemen. Listen up.
Ssssssh, please, listen up.
Tonight we have a special guest, an expert on global warming …. eh?
Sorry an expert on climate change …. eh, capitals ?
An Expert on Climate Change … that better ?
An Expert on Anthropogenic Climate Change …. eh, catastrophic ? OK gotcha
An Expert on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change
Ladies and Gentlemen, please put your hands together and welcome tonight’s special guest …. the one and only:
Stan W,
(clap, clap, clap, clap, clap) LOL, Phil. This show has been SO entertaining.
I can’t wait for the encore
400ppm, eh. Let’s see… that means that 99.96% of the atmosphere is NOT carbon dioxide.
DirkH says:
April 30, 2013 at 2:18 pm
JP says:
April 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm
RE: decreasing/increasing consumption
Products do become smaller and more efficient – take as a single example the microwave oven . . .
http://microwavelegend.com/
. . . now smaller, better, less costly, more useful. But the World’s population is not yet falling and where it is not, the demographic transition still has a long way to go and will involve a lot of young people, a lot of consumption, and new things (products) yet to be thought of. As a near term practical matter anyway, a lot of widespread cheap energy would be most helpful and that the Malthusians do hate.
Answers for Stan W:
Yes, I understand the difference between 3 cents and 3 euros. Given that the euro is a decimal based currency, 3 cents is 3% of one euro, while 3 euros is 300% of one euro.
No, I do not, however, understand that “… the price is completely dependent on government policies?” Given that these CER are traded on a free market exchange, governmental policy is but one of many factors in the pricing of any commodity including these certificates, with supply and demand factoring in all the variables and WAG’s of the traders being the final determinants of the price.
You know, and I am NOT being sarcastic, I just realized that I actually feel bad, now, about laughing at Mr. W.. I don’t think all is well with him.
Dear Stan W.,
You could have a lot of neat blogger friends on this site if you wanted to. They won’t always respond to all you write, but, you could be a part of the WUWT camaraderie instead of the butt of jokes … . That any of these scientists and, truly, they are “giants”, who have been patiently explaining would take the time to respond to you, is a wonderful privilege.
That’s it, isn’t it? You get the attention of some world class scientists by tossing out obviously mistaken, sometimes even ridiculous, assertions that they graciously attempt to answer. Then, they have fun with you. And you let them. Stan! You are worth more than that. Don’t make a fool out of yourself to get the attention you crave. You don’t need to be a clown to have friends. Your perseverance and the fact that you keep coming back here shows that you like these guys (and, perhaps, some women, too, but I think mostly men have been responding to you — I don’t count, I’m not a scientist at all).
How about it? Why not try to just humbly and happily enjoy learning from all these fine minds? Ask a genuine, thoughtful, question or two and you will get both attention and keep your self-respect.
You deserve better.
Sincerely,
Janice Moore
@onlyme —
i will not waste my time on someone who can’t understand how they are off by a factor of 100.
who is next?
Pete says:
400ppm, eh. Let’s see… that means that 99.96% of the atmosphere is NOT carbon dioxide.
clue for you: ozone is less than 10 ppm.
without it you’d be dead.
@janice_moore —
i don’t want to be your friend.
will you address the evidence i presented, instead of dancing away from it?
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In your post at April 30, 2013 at 4:29 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1292741
you quote part of a statement I made in my post at April 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1292700
then you make an untrue assertion.
You write
But I DID NOT SAY THAT. Indeed, I said, and you did not copy,
As I explained (read my post, I have provided the link to it from this post)
1.
if the equilibrium balance between air and ocean concentrations is set by changing pH
2.
then at present there would be a net CO2 flux from the air into the ocean surface layer (and from ocean surface layer to deep ocean) because the present anthropogenic emission is to the air
3.
but if there were no anthropogenic emission to the air then there would be a net CO2 flux from the ocean surface layer into the air (and from deep ocean into the ocean surface layer) because there would be no additional input of CO2
4.
and the depletion of deep ocean CO2 would be completely insignificant because almost all the CO2 is in the ocean
5.
so the change in atmospheric CO2 would be the same whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed when the equilbrium concentrations of CO2 in air and ocean are set by reducing ocean surface layer pH.
This is NOT “impossible”. It is an adjustment of the system – by redistribution of CO2 within the system – in response to a change in equilibrium of the system induced by a change to the pH of the ocean surface layer.
Your conceptual problem seems to be that you think the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is so large that it dominates the system of the carbon cycle. But, in reality, the anthropogenic emission is a small addition to the CO2 in the total system (it is like adding water to the ocean by use of a bucket: the addition will always be relatively very, very small).
Richard
Stan W.:
re your rude post to janice moore at May 1, 2013 at 12:03 am.
It is clear that you don’t want friends so there was no need to say that.
And everybody will continue to ignore the irrelevant nonsense which you present until you address the evidence presented to you.
Richard
dbstealey says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Exactly right. The warmer global temperatures caused the rise in CO2, just like today.
Right about the past, wrong about the present: the graph you provided only shows the variability around the trend, not the trend itself. The variability is mainly temperature induced (and partly by precipitation changes during El Niño’s), but the current trend can’t be caused by temperature: the effect of seawater temperature is not more than 16 ppmv/°C, but there is already 100 ppmv extra in the atmosphere above the temperature dictated equilibrium. Further, vegetation reacts the other way out. The real influence of 1°C increase thus is only 8 ppmv/°C over the past few million years, except for the past 160 years or so…
In perspective: human emissions plotted with the increase in the atmosphere, where the difference is what is net absorbed by nature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 12:19 am
Richard,
My reasoning may have been a little to fast to be followed, but let us do it step by step:
if the equilibrium balance between air and ocean concentrations is set by changing pH
OK, all other things being equal, a lower pH of the oceans waters by some exogenic factor (like SO2 from undersea volcanoes) would increase the pCO2 of the oceans thus push CO2 from the oceans into the atmosphere until the pCO2(atm) and pCO2(aq) are back in equilibrium.
The relevant points are that the transfer of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere is at the cost of the carbon content, DIC, of the oceans surface layer and the levels in the atmosphere would increase, with or whithout human emissions.
then at present there would be a net CO2 flux from the air into the ocean surface layer (and from ocean surface layer to deep ocean) because the present anthropogenic emission is to the air
We see an increasing rise of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 160 years or so. That may be (partly) caused by a change in pH.
A reduction of pH pushes more CO2 in the atmosphere and gives a reduction of DIC.
An increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (whatever the cause) pushes more CO2 from the atmosphere in the oceans and increases DIC.
“Equilibrium case” is that with increasing human emissions as much CO2 is pushed back into the oceans as was released by the reduction in pH. At that moment DIC isn’t increased or decreased compared to before the pH reduction.
But there is a measured increase in DIC. Thus more CO2 is pushed into the oceans than was released by the pH reduction. That proves that any exogenic pH reduction was not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I am replying to your post at May 1, 2013 at 2:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293185
in response to my post at May 1, 2013 at 12:19 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293095
Ferdinand, I know from past experience that you are not being deliberately obtuse.
I have tried to explain the matter in two different ways and you still ‘don’t get it’. I will try again.
You are only considering (a) the air and (b) the ocean surface layer.
I am considering the (a) air, (b) the ocean surface layer, and (c) the deep ocean.
n.b. You are ignoring the deep ocean.
As I said to you in the post you are replying
But you say in reply to that
No, nothing is ‘pushed’.
The carbon distributes in response to the equilibrium change. It takes time to distribute. And the new distribution provides an altered atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Hence, the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in the ocean surface layer adjusts as an intermediary between the air and deep ocean. And the adjustment is not instantaneous so the DIC alters as the adjustment occurs.
As I explained, there are two cases; i.e. with the anthropogenic emission and without it.
Case 1.
With the anthropogenic emission the net flux during the adjustment is
air –> ocean surface layer –> deep ocean
Case 2.
Without the anthropogenic emission the net flux during the adjustment is
deep ocean –> ocean surface layer –> air
We are considering Case 1.
The atmospheric CO2 is continuing to increase and, therefore, if the equilibrium has changed – or is changing – then the transition to the altered equilibrium state is still happening; n.b. the transition to the altered equilibrium is now happening.
The DIC in the ocean surface layer will increase during the transition to the altered equilibrium (otherwise there would be no net flux from ocean surface layer to deep ocean). So, the increase to DIC does not prove anything because it is an expected effect.
I again ask for it be noted that I am NOT saying the alteration to pH has happened. I am pointing out that it may have happened. And there is no way to know whether or not it has happened. But if it has happened then it alone could be the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard
since there was an ice age at 7,000 ppm, I would sweat it. besides, if we could ever get summer going, co2 levels drop on their step up as the h hem greens in summer. Next year they can rejoice because it will get there and stay.. and the trend down in temps will continue anyway
By the way, that increase is 1.8/400 of 1/2500 of the atmosphere, which means the increase yearly of co2 is 1.8/1000000 of the atmosphere. This gets more frivolous by the day. When the earth greens in response to the natural warming that has occurred, this will level off, and since cooling is starting, there should be a decrease in 20-30 years, which would go hand in hand with colder times and less crop yields.
the spell check changed wouldnt to would in comment above. maybe if I could learn to spell….
[But “which would not go” does not appear to be what you want said. ??? Mod]
Joseph Bastardi:
Thankyou for your posts at May 1, 2013 at 3:25 am and May 1, 2013 at 3:28 am.
I write to draw attention to them.
They state the trivial importance of the recent CO2 rise and the minute nature of the rise. Thankyou.
Richard
Joseph Bastardi says:
May 1, 2013 at 3:28 am
Let me both agree with what you just said; and at the same time, disagree with your apparent conclusion and its related extrapolation into the future.
1. Let us agree that there is significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere right now than in the past (before 1950..) This increased CO2, plus the natural warming that is continuing upward at a cyclical 60 year rate since 1750, mean every plant on earth is growing faster, stronger, higher, wider, and longer with more leaves than before 1950.
If so, the earth’s land areas are going to be significantly greener (darker) than before 1950, and thus their albedo SHOULD BE darker. The increase in temperature over land can be explained entirely by a darker “earth” and its increased absorption of sunlight into the now darker areas. (If albedo decreases from 0.38 to 0.375, does not more energy get absorbed?) True, “CO2 did it” but CO2 did NOT “do it” by the today’s popular CAGW theory, but simply because more sunlight is being absorbed. (Thus, even with a “quieter sun” land temperatures SHOULD level out higher than before, but sea temperatures will change very very little because increased chlorophyll (seaweed, etc) does not change seawater total absorption as dramatically as increased trees, brushes, and grass do on land. A darker earth is absorbing more energy from a quieter sun, so temperatures level out at a higher level.)
The increase in INLAND sub-arctic polar area temperatures is also explained, and the increase in temperatures on the slightly warmer Antarctic peninsula can be explained: It is NOT arctic sea temperatures that have increased recently (though none by as much as NASA-GISS claims) but inland Canadian temperatures hundreds of kilometers from the Arctic Ocean – but only hundreds of meters from ten billion trees that are all now growing 27% faster, taller, and deeper. So, we should be seeing higher temperatures in central Canada.
Now, to disagree: Why would you expect any trend to a colder climate to “balance out” or to level out? Only if today’s 2000-2015 temperatures ARE the peak to our climb up from the Little Ice Age would we see future temperatures go down. Otherwise, we would have a steady increase from the LIA up for 420 or 460 years: So the peak would be later: 1650 + 460 = 2110.
But – to predict any future peak based on the Roman Warm Period high to the Dark Ages minimum to Medieval Warming Period high to the LIA minimum to a future high, do we not first have to establish WHEN each earlier period WAS at its peak or trough, then establish what the 60 year short cycle is on top of that long term cycle?
Forget for a moment we don’t know what causes either a long term or a short cycle in the climate, but we would need to know “when” the previous cycles were before we can predict the next cycle peak,
Ferdinand Engleband has claimed that my temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in sea water was wrong and that Henry’s law held.
I claimed no such thing. Temperature is the controlling factor but partial pressure was not much of an influence due to the small partial pressure change of the CO2, 390-400ppmv within the overall atmospheric mix. Temperature is more important than this small partial pressure change. As temperature falls so solubility increases. I did not say Henry’s law did not hold only it was a very small part in this case.
Mod: I think Mr Bastardi may be referring to the ‘would’ in this which should be wouldn’t:
” Joseph Bastardi says:
May 1, 2013 at 3:25 am
since there was an ice age at 7,000 ppm, I would sweat it. besides, if we could ever get summer going, co2 levels drop on their step up as the h hem greens in summer. Next year they can rejoice because it will get there and stay.. and the trend down in temps will continue anyway”
[Makes sense. However, we will make no change until Mr. B confirms your assumption. Mod]
RACookPE1978
The global tremperature is very noisy and somewhat meaningless. Here is CET, the most scrutinised instrumental record on earth which dates to 1660. I reconstructed it using a great deal of contemporary observational material, crop records, science papers etc back to 1538.
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png
The temperature has been rising since that date. My latest research indicates that the period 1490 to 1540 appears to be very similar to todays temperatures so presumably any trend line would disappear. So you have your 460 years as the CET turned down drastically in 2000 as can be seen in the Met office records
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
My inclination is to think that a temperatutre tha thas been rising for 460 years is likely to resume its upwards path but I can’t predict the future, only highlight the past. What is certain is that GISS from 1880 was merely a staging post for temperature rise and not the starting post.
tonyb
Isn’t it obvious? i think Turnkey Home is good
I just have to thank Stan W. for his humorous comments. Jumps in making idiotic claims and then runs away with his tail between his legs.
Not only that, if there really was energy going into the deep oceans that is where it would stay. The average temperature of the oceans is 3.9C and the atmosphere is 15C. Since Stan claims to be such a physics expert he should realize that heat flows from warmer to cooler objects. That means burning every last ounce of fossil fuels on the planet would end up heating the deep oceans by at most a couple of tenths of a degree. The energy would just stay where it is at those depths. IOW, Stan is actually claiming there is no possible catastrophe from increased CO2. Any greenhouse warmth will be absorbed in the oceans where it will have almost zero impact.
johnmarshall says:
May 1, 2013 at 4:56 am
Ferdinand Engleband has claimed that my temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in sea water was wrong and that Henry’s law held.
I claimed no such thing. Temperature is the controlling factor but partial pressure was not much of an influence due to the small partial pressure change of the CO2, 390-400ppmv within the overall atmospheric mix. Temperature is more important than this small partial pressure change. As temperature falls so solubility increases. I did not say Henry’s law did not hold only it was a very small part in this case.
Henry’s Law includes both the pressure term and the temperature term (via the T dependency of the Henry’s Law coefficient). The influence of the partial pressure is linear so a change of 10ppm is about a 2.5% change. The influence of temperature is the reciprocal of temperature so a change of 0.1K from 288K amounts to a ~1% change. So you appear to have the controlling influences reversed, both parameters are important.
As posted earlier:
The temperature dependance of kH is given by:
kH(T)=kH(298)*(2400(1/T-1/298)) =29.41*(2400(1/T-1/298))
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
You are ignoring the deep ocean
Indeed, simply because any changes between the deep oceans and the atmosphere needs many centuries to get a new equilibrium. Further, the deep ocean exchanges are always via the surface. Even at the upwelling places where deep ocean water comes on the surface of the Pacific equator, DIC is increasing… That is completely in contrast to an eventually decrease in pH of the deep oceans. We don’t know much of the changes in the past, but pH changes in the mass of the deep oceans don’t occur that fast, so we may assume that any change to a lower pH in the recent centuries still exist today.
But let us assume that the increase in the atmosphere is caused by a reduced pH in the deep oceans.
In that case, in first instance, the lower pH of the deep oceans will lower the pH of the mixed layer near the surface, or nothing happens in the atmosphere. That means that anyway DIC of the mixed layer must have decreased over time. But as DIC increased at least since 1984, according to the longest series at Bermuda (BATS), at least halve of the increase in the atmosphere since 1850 (50 ppmv increase since 1984) is not from the oceans.
Further, 13C/12C ratio measurements on coralline sponges in the same area as BATS, show a decline since about 1850 in complete lockstep with the decline in the atmosphere and human emissions. That too shows that the change is from the atmosphere into the oceans and not reverse, as any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
So, there is no reason to assume that the other halve of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere pre 1984 is caused by a pH drop in the (deep) oceans.
You see, we even haven’t used the mass balance argument…
johnmarshall says:
May 1, 2013 at 4:56 am
I claimed no such thing. Temperature is the controlling factor but partial pressure was not much of an influence due to the small partial pressure change of the CO2, 390-400ppmv within the overall atmospheric mix.
Sorry, misinterpreted what you said. If it was only over the past 10 ppmv, you are right for all practical purposes. My points were intended for the full change over the past 160 years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for – as you point out – not side-tracking the discussion onto the mass balance argument in your post at May 1, 2013 at 6:51 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293353
However, you are now agreeing what I said but seem to be unaware of that.
You now say
Yes! That is what I said in my post you are answering which is at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293226
But you are trying to use that as an excuse to ignore the interaction between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean. Please read what I wrote. It is not admissible to pretend a part of the system does not exist when considering a change to the system.
Then you say
Why? It is not relevant in any way to the hypothesis under discussion.
We are discussing the putative effect of a change to ocean surface layer pH as a result of sulphur ions arriving at that layer following their emission by volcanism centuries ago.
And the sponge data confirms what I said: i.e. the net fluxes in response to the altered equilibrium would be from air to ocean surface layer and from ocean surface layer to deep ocean.
Please read my post you are answering.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 7:09 am
But you are trying to use that as an excuse to ignore the interaction between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean. Please read what I wrote. It is not admissible to pretend a part of the system does not exist when considering a change to the system.
Really? But that’s exactly what you do when you compare anthropogenic CO2 emissions to natural emissions and pretend the sinks don’t exist!
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 7:09 am
We are discussing the putative effect of a change to ocean surface layer pH as a result of sulphur ions arriving at that layer following their emission by volcanism centuries ago.
Please explain what a ‘sulphur ion’ is, as a chemist I’ve never heard of such a thing. Once you’ve clarified that we can discuss your hypothetical mechanism for pH change at the surface. Bear in mind though that the pH change at the surface is a result of [CO2] increase, not vice versa.
When rain falls through the atmosphere it absorbs CO2 and forms a mild carbonic acid. This acid enters the soil where it disolves limestone. After a series of reactions the dissolved calcium from the limestone forms calcium hydroxide which flows down the rivers into the ocean. There are huge quantities of calcium hydroxide put into solution in the ocean by this process. This raises the pH. The absorption of CO2 lowers the pH. However, the factors that establish pH are complex and include salinity of the ocean. The computation of pH in the ocean is done by a computer program. pH also varies with depth in the ocean. The upper warm layer of the ocean has a pH that is approximately one above the balance of the ocean. The explanation that I have seen for this difference is the photosynthesis that takes place in the ocean’s surface removes CO2 and raises the pH.
Phil.:
I am copying all of your egregious post at May 1, 2013 at 7:18 am so everybody can see what I am refuting.
I have NEVER done that, NOT EVER.
But I will relate to what you refer as demonstration to others of your behaviour.
I wrote as part of a post on another thread
Phil. said that was “disingenuous” because – he said – I should have written
That, of course, changed the subject.
I talked about the potential of the anthropogenic emission to cause “Armaggedon” (i.e. catastrophe).
Phil. ignored the subject of that potential threat and switched it to “a net natural sink effect” (i.e. the carbon cycle).
I was NOT “disingenuous” by mentioning the asserted threat of the anthropogenic emission. And the “sinks” were not relevant to what I said. They were only relevant to the subject which Phil. would have preferred me to have raised.
And he has the gall to come here and to pretend that I “compare[d] anthropogenic CO2 emissions to natural emissions and pretend[ed] the sinks don’t exist”.
Even by Phil’s trolling standards, this is low.
Richard
Phil.:
re your post at May 1, 2013 at 7:24 am.
No! We cannot discuss anything because I refrain from wasting my time interacting with egregious trolls.
Richard
I had been hoping that another reader familiar with the pliocene would have commented on this article. I have been too crazy busy with work and family matters to do so, and it takes me too long to write up complicated thoughts so that they can be understood.
But …
The characterization of the pliocene climate implied in this artical is completely bass ackwords! They authors are implying that raising CO2 caused the warming seen. Problem is that the pliocene is characterized by a generally cooling and drying climate. It is the cooling that is thought to be the driver. Any warming was a temporary respite as the earth plunged into the modern ice age.
@ Phil.
So you have re-emerged here. After hiding. Evading.
Answer the question you were asked and twisted and slunk away from on a previous thread.
Your previous performance can be re-posted here if necessary.
What is your financial interest in the promotion of policies that you KNOW have and will kill a vast number of human beings?
@ Stan W.
More one line snideness. Answer the question: how many dollars per corpse?
jc:
I dislike the behaviours of both Phil and Stan W but I also abhor what you are doing.
You cannot know what you are asserting. You are trolling. Stop it.
Richard
jc says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:30 am
@ Phil.
So you have re-emerged here. After hiding. Evading.
Answer the question you were asked and twisted and slunk away from on a previous thread.
Your previous performance can be re-posted here if necessary.
What is your financial interest in the promotion of policies that you KNOW have and will kill a vast number of human beings?
Due to your activities (like those you are restarting here) Anthony shut down discussion on that thread so further replies were not possible. I’ll certainly not encourage your activity here.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 8:20 am
Phil.:
re your post at May 1, 2013 at 7:24 am.
No! We cannot discuss anything because I refrain from wasting my time interacting with egregious trolls.
Your choice the scientific discussion will continue without you.
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 10:34 am
Phil.:
re your post at April 30, 2013 at 9:35 am.
Ferdinand is here so you could left discussion of the carbon cycle to him because he knows what he is talking about.
Your calculations are meaningless because, for example, they ignore effect of pH.
Indeed Ferdinand does as do I. I performed no calculations I presented the governing equations.
pH is not ignored it enters via the chemical equilibria which I referred too, it determines what form the CO2 takes in solution, in the ocean, bicarbonate.
The equilibrium CO2 concentrations of atmosphere and ocean surface are dependent on the alkalinity of ocean surface layer. A change of average pH of only 0.1 would be more than sufficient to have caused more than all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. And such a change is far, far too small for it to be discernible.
You have cause and effect reversed, it is the increase in [CO2] which leads to the change in pH.
Could such a change have happened? Yes, and the reason for it would probably have ended centuries ago.
Undersea volcanoes release sulphur ions which are carried by the passing water.
There is no such thing as a ‘sulphur ion’ and Richard refuses to enlighten us as to what he meant. As far as the ocean is concerned the only significant sulphur containing ion is sulphate, SO4–. Na, K, SO4, Br, B and F have constant ratios to Cl and each other, everywhere in the ocean, therefore this cannot be responsible for the putative changes in pH that Richard hypothesized.
In connection with hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor sulphide ions, S–, are released so I assume that this is what Richard refers to. Unfortunately for Richard’s hypothesis, sulphide salts are very insoluble in water so when the hot H2S reaches the seawater it reacts with dissolved metal ions such as iron in the seawater and precipitates out the insoluble salt, e.g. FeS. This is the ‘smoke’ of the ‘black smokers’. Also locally the SO4– ions are depleted near the smoker by reaction to form anhydrite, CaSO4.
The thermohaline circulation carries the sulphur until it reaches ocean surface layer centuries later. The sulphur ions then reduce the alkalinity of the ocean surface layer.
This clearly doesn’t happen, it ends up as sulphide minerals on the ocean floor!
Did a variation in undersea volcanic activity happen centuries ago? Nobody knows.
Is that the reason for recent rise in atmospheric CO2 or not? Nobody can know.
Actually the science indicates that it didn’t/couldn’t happen that way.
Richard’s idea of making up a scenario which appeals to his personal incredulity is not science and his lack of understanding of the basic science (chemistry in this case) doesn’t help.
Friends:
I point you to the post from Phil at May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am.
This is science fiction at its best. Asimov would have been proud.
Of course, I shall continue to discuss the carbon cycle with Ferdinand because – although he and I fundamentally disagree – Ferdinand has both knowledge and understanding of the carbon cycle. Also, he attempts serious scientific debate.
Richard
@ richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 10:46 am
Please do not use Isaac Asimov as your example. While it is true he was the greatest Science Fiction writer of all time, he also wrote solid scientific books in every Dewey Decimal classification of his time. He was a real scientist.
@ richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:39 am
On a previous post (The Unravelling of Global Warming is Accelerating, April 19th) after observing the contributions of both Stan W. and Phil., and the nature of any responses they made, I asked a simple question (at 11pm April 22nd) of both of them: did either of them gain financial advantage from the adoption of AGW as a basis for policy decisions.
The was my comment and question in entirety. It contained no element whatsoever relating to anything else and was purely neutral in tone, carrying no implied criticism of any arrangement or of them.
I subsequently had a response from Stan W, not answering the question, but instead asking me if I had any financial interest in disagreeing with the AGW proposition or policies. I answered this fully.
I then reiterated the question to Stan W, which he again responded to, this time answering partially and evasively.
He refused to respond thereafter although made fully aware of the inadequacy of his response, and despite his continued activity in a manner consistent with his previous form.
The response from Phil. was similarly evasive. He responded three times without saying anything at all of relevance, instead trying to divert attention.
This was a very simple question.
It required only a simple answer.
Neither of them were prepared to do this. Instead resorting to evasion.
Both of these have appeared on WUWT and have demonstrated palpable insincerity of purpose: they are not here to participate honestly.
The degree to which the issue of AGW is actually about science is debatable. The fact that there are billions of dollars involved in how it is perceived and any perception applied, is not.
To maintain that any given proponent of AGW is unaffected and unmotivated by personal financial considerations, without knowing that to be the case, is a fantasy.
If it were NOT for these venal motivations, AGW would now be dead.
When it is established as is the case here with these two, that they are not sincere, not honest in the manner of discourse, then the obvious and inescapable question is why.
People are dead. More will die. To start insisting on knowing why is the only thing that will stop it. That takes more than questioning “the science”. More than analysing political and policy responses. More than examining ideologies.
It takes knowing beings such as Stan W and Phil. for what they are.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 7:09 am
Richard, you are a master in diverting the attention from the main points in the discussion towards irrelevant details.
I didn’t take into account the deep ocean layers because the changes in the deep ocean layers are much slower than in the surface layer. Not at least because of the about 50:1 ratio in carbon mass. So either
– the decrease in pH is from the deep ocean layers and thus should still be at work in the surface layer
– the decrease in pH is only in the surface layer and slowly dilutes in the deep ocean layers.
Both caused by an external strong(er) acid like sulphate emissions from (undersea or land) volcanoes and both causing (part of) the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In both cases the decrease in pH of the surface layer lowers and DIC and increases the CO2 emissions from the surface layer to the atmosphere.
Any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium will cause an extra CO2 flux from the atmosphere into the surface layer, increase DIC and lowers its pH.
The fact that DIC in the surface layer increased over the past near 30 years incontrovertibly proves that at least in the past 30 years the CO2 flow was from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse. Thus at least halve of the increase in the atmosphere is NOT from ocean acidification and at least in the past 30 years, the pH decrease in the oceans is from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, not reverse.
And the sponge data confirms what I said: i.e. the net fluxes in response to the altered equilibrium would be from air to ocean surface layer and from ocean surface layer to deep ocean.
The reverse of what you say: a lower pH in the ocean surface (if the pH changed due to exogenic factors) increases the CO2 flow from the oceans to the atmosphere, until higher levels in the atmosphere are reached at a higher equilibrium. Now you say that the altered equilibrium is causing more CO2 going from the atmosphere into the oceans?
As I said before: the increase in DIC means that any exogenic acidification of the ocean surface layer is more than compensated by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thus in no way such an acidification is the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, whatever the change in setpoint by the pH lowering was.
@Phil. says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
Yet more duplicity. Trying to pretend that you could not answer because the thread was shut down. You responded to me three times. Three times. Saying nothing. Squirming away.
Simple question. Answer it.
“Why? Even when the number of humans plateaus or starts to decline slightly I would expect resource consumption per capita to go up, as automation makes products ever cheaper. I know the Malthusians must hate this and will do their very best to stop us from having it, but they control only the broke nations of the West.”
I’m really surprised that not more statisticians and demographers have caught on to population trends. The first thing we should realize that if current trends continue, there won’t be a “slight” decline in global populations. Europe is headed towards halving its population before 2100. Ditto for Japan and Russia.China, while riding a different timeline is on the same trend slope. By 2100 China’s population will have long ago stopped growing and will be declining. North America is on the same trend, but on a slightly more gentle slope. South America and Central America are also on the same negative trend line. UN Total Fertility Rate numbers show only positive population growth in some parts of East Asia, Africa, and Oceania (These are the only areas where the TFRs are above replacement levels of 2.1 children). India, while still growing its population is also seeing decelerated growth rates.
These numbers equate to a Global Total Fertility Rate of 2.34, down from 4.85 in 1970 (based on UN data). At this rate, the globe will pass below the 2.1 TFR sometime in the next 15 years. With fewer babies, there will be fewer females. And fewer females equates to even fewer future children. To break this cycle women across the globe would have to produce somewhere between 3 and 4 children at sustain that number for at least 2-3 generations. Good luck with that.
What this all means is that the demand for finished goods, consumer goods, energy, and food will be decreasing. Demographic momentuem might keep things “stable” for another decade. But, the facts are simple. We most probably hit peaks in demand for food, energy, and finished goods between 1998-2007. The elderly consume less than the young, they save more of thier money, and take fewer chances. The reality of a prolonged global recession shouldn’t be scoffed at.
That is why I find all of this AGW nonsense so tiresome. CO2 levels will probably hit peak levels the next 10-15 years before decreasing.
Phil. says:
May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am
In connection with hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor sulphide ions, S–, are released
No direct ready knowledge of mine about volcanic emissions, but I have read that a lot of sulphur compounds are released as SO2, which – in the atmosphere – oxydise to SO3 and form H2SO4with water which attracts more water and forms the reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere which give part of the cooling after major eruptions. In water that may give similar reactions, which “might” give a lower pH. Not that I expect that, but that would give some theoretical possibility.
philjourdan:
re your post to me at May 1, 2013 at 11:09 am
Yes, you are right. Asimov did write some good science so I should not have used him for my illustration. Sorry.
For information of onlookers who did not understand my illustration and your just offence at my using it, I explain the following.
Phil claims to be a chemist. His post at May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am said
Firstly, I talked about changes to volcanism. And volcanism varies. Phil talked about hydrothermal vents. The difference is profound. Wicki says this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
And he claims that sulphur emissions form sulphide ions so react with metal salts to precipitate out. That is plain wrong. Sulphate ions also form. Indeed, the lava from Kilauha (Hawaii) flows into the sea and the result is that the sea in that vicinity turns yellow from the sulphuric and sulphurous acid which forms.
But Phil says
In fact, sulphate ions are the third most common ion in the ocean; see e.g.
http://www.lenntech.com/composition-seawater.htm
The three largest ionic concentrations in typical sea water are
Chloride (Cl-) 18.980 mg/L
Sodium (Na+) 10.556 mg/L
Sulfate (SO42-) 2.649 mg/L
Yes, philjourdan, I insulted the memory of Asimov by suggesting he would have been associated with science fiction such as that Phil wrote. I apologise to you and to the memory of Isaac Asimov.
Richard
What’s with this northern hemisphere stuff; CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere isn’t it; it is isn’t it ??
George,
The idea of well mixed is not accurate. Atmospheric CO2 levels are being controlled and distributed by clouds and jet streams toward the poles. The Arctic is a strong sink that is partially to fully stoppered half of the year. The Antarctic is surrounded by a strong sink that cycles North and South annually. As a result, the NH will experience higher CO2 concentrations before the SH.
Friends:
I draw attention to the post by Ferdinand Engelbeen at May 1, 2013 at 11:40 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293563
Ferdinand disputes my argument.
Please note that in the post he refutes an assertion which disputes my argument.
This demonstrates the integrity which Ferdinand always displays in our often very heated arguments about this subject.
Perhaps people can see from this why I am willing to debate with Ferdinand and not trolls.
Richard
The oceans rose so fast in the Pliocene that some of my family’s skulls evolved to looked just like those of a walrus.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 11:44 am
Phil claims to be a chemist.
Indeed I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry.
His post at May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am said
In connection with hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor sulphide ions, S–, are released so I assume that this is what Richard refers to. Unfortunately for Richard’s hypothesis, sulphide salts are very insoluble in water so when the hot H2S reaches the seawater it reacts with dissolved metal ions such as iron in the seawater and precipitates out the insoluble salt, e.g. FeS. This is the ‘smoke’ of the ‘black smokers’. Also locally the SO4– ions are depleted near the smoker by reaction to form anhydrite, CaSO4.
Because you went off in huff and refused to say what you meant by the meaningless term ‘sulphur ion’, so I was left to assume what you meant.
I first addressed the possibility that you might be talking about sulphate:
” As far as the ocean is concerned the only significant sulphur containing ion is sulphate, SO4–. Na, K, SO4, Br, B and F have constant ratios to Cl and each other, everywhere in the ocean, therefore this cannot be responsible for the putative changes in pH that Richard hypothesized.”
I notice that you don’t refer to that statement!
I then addressed the possibility that you might be referring to hydrothermal vents where the ion concerned is the sulphide ion and showed that your hypothesis was impossible.
Firstly, I talked about changes to volcanism. And volcanism varies. Phil talked about hydrothermal vents. The difference is profound. Wicki says this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
Submarine volcanoes are underwater fissures in the Earth’s surface from which magma can erupt. They are estimated to account for 75% of annual magma output. The vast majority are located near areas of tectonic plate movement, known as ocean ridges. Although most are located in the depths of seas and oceans, some also exist in shallow water, which can spew material into the air during an eruption. Hydrothermal vents, sites of abundant biological activity, are commonly found near submarine volcanoes.
And he claims that sulphur emissions form sulphide ions so react with metal salts to precipitate out. That is plain wrong.
Not true that is exactly what happens!
Sulphate ions also form. Indeed, the lava from Kilauha (Hawaii) flows into the sea and the result is that the sea in that vicinity turns yellow from the sulphuric and sulphurous acid which forms.
Indeed they do which is why I addressed them first!
But Phil says
This clearly doesn’t happen, it ends up as sulphide minerals on the ocean floor!
Which is indeed the fate of H2S emissions.
In fact, sulphate ions are the third most common ion in the ocean; see e.g.
http://www.lenntech.com/composition-seawater.htm
The three largest ionic concentrations in typical sea water are
Chloride (Cl-) 18.980 mg/L
Sodium (Na+) 10.556 mg/L
Sulfate (SO42-) 2.649 mg/L
Which is why i said: “As far as the ocean is concerned the only significant sulphur containing ion is sulphate, SO4–.” As I pointed out it doesn’t show the variability that would be necessary to support your hypothesis, giving the value to four figures should have been a clue.
Yes, philjourdan, I insulted the memory of Asimov by suggesting he would have been associated with science fiction such as that Phil wrote. I apologise to you and to the memory of Isaac Asimov.
The only fiction in that post was yours with your hypothesis of the imaginary ‘sulphur ion’ resulting from submarine eruptions leading to a change in surface pH, a fabrication without any support. In contrast all my statements can be supported by the scientific literature:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/cdiac74/chapter2.pdf
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf
http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/earth/pdf/black_smokers_incubators.pdf
steveta_uk says:
April 30, 2013 at 9:45 am
> http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_month.png
> The above graph shows we’ve already passed 400 several times. Nothing happened.
Check out http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_week.png which claims to be for the week ending May 30th. The CO2 level will be above 400 ppm for one sample that will be taken during the evening of the 25th!
Espen says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:27 am
> The Scripps site has not updated its “daily” curve for several days now:
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
Fixed, from http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/why-daily-readings-are-sometimes-unavailable/ :
Many readers noticed that there were several days without readings recently. A problem occurred on Friday, April 26, when a computer failure late in the afternoon resulted in some data loss until repairs were made on the morning of April 29. Daily average estimates for April 27 and 28 were therefore not determined.
In quickly scanning comments to this point it looks like no one has yet mentioned that 5MYBP marks the beginning of a significant – for humans at least! – era – that of the “modern” ice age (or maybe the start of the latest meso-pulse of the modern ice age commencing 30MYBP – I’ve never been clear on that).
At any rate, if human activities were tempering the fairly extreme climate swings of the last 5 million years, when climate has been human-friendly Holocene only about 17% of the time, this would be a bad thing?
Do these people ever consider what they’re saying?
PaddikJ says:
May 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm
###
Scan again.
@ Paul.
Now five times asked. Four times acknowledged as a question. Four times evaded.
And the last ignored.
When a child is asked a direct question an honest response is expected. To be evasive, and deceitful, is taken as being indicative as to the status of actions undertaken by the child.
When asked once, and this is the response, it can be interpreted as discomfort or shame.
When asked twice, this can be interpreted as obduracy or guilt.
When asked three times, guilt associated with that action is confirmed, and in this instance a dishonesty of character.
Why do they do this? Because they think they will get into trouble because what they have done is WRONG. They KNOW it is wrong.
You have been asked 5 times. You have articulated a response 4 times, each having the character of evasion.
You know that elements of your actions are wrong. Mens rea Is established.
From your comment at: “the Unravelling of Global Warming is Accelerating”; April 19th 2013 –
“What if the weather shift this winter in the UK is the result of melting sea ice due to CO2 then who would you suggest are culpable in the excess deaths there?”
You do two things here.
1. You acknowledge that you know that people were killed.
2. You try to maintain that they were killed by cold, which might have as its cause a variety of factors. You do this in the full knowledge that they were NOT killed by cold as such, rather they were killed by availability, use, and cost of energy. You therefore seek to excuse public policy, which you are a part of advocating for, maintaining, and significantly expanding, from any responsibility. You know that to be false. You advance this falsity with duplicity.
You are therefore aware that your position, which you seek to advance in the manner demonstrated here, has killed people, and can be expected to kill more people.
It is therefore established that you know what you are doing is wrong. And that the course of action you seek to promote has killed and will kill people.
Your general comments and responses here are a matter of record. Insofar as they support and confirm an intention to manipulate and deceive – to not act in “good faith” – you can be seen as culpable in any intended result which does in fact occur having been in all or part enacted because of like behavior by you or those with whom you seek to achieve this.
That will be a matter of further scrutiny, but from what has been seen here, it can be confidently said that this is the case.
If, in fact, you are also receiving financial advantage from your association with this issue, this makes the situation clear cut. In particular if your actual role in gaining this financial advantage is, in part or whole, formally or informally, to prosecute this agenda in such a way, this is comprehensive and irrefutable.
Given that an element of your evasion generally is to evade that point specifically, that can be surmised to be the probable case.
Your awareness of your actions and the implications of those actions is established. Your knowledge that your prosecution of those actions is morally wrong is established. That you financially benefit from the implications of your actions is highly probable. That you act in concert with others in this way is likely.
You know that the result of your morally wrong actions, which you gain financial benefit from, will result in death.
This is not a game.
You should consult historical records to gain an understanding of what the consequences are for those who betray the trust, or seek to damage a society and its people to this degree and in this way, when they are held to account. Provocateurs and propagandists are not overlooked. In fact the most revulsion is held for those who insinuate themselves and seek to undermine whilst claiming common cause.
You will think that you are one of many and that you have powerful associates. You are wrong. Take a look around. How many are like you, exposed through this type of interaction.
Even those fully active in promoting this agenda through publications and interactions not visible to the public, will have room to move, simply because of their isolation from being challenged means that it is more difficult to establish dishonesty in their methodology. Not you. You are a shag on a rock. If there are 10,000 like you, equally exposed, there will be no hiding for any of you.
Any attempt to return here or elsewhere and build a case for seeming “reasonable” as a counterbalance will fail. You, and others, are on notice that that is predictable as a strategy and can therefore be dismissed.
This agenda has caused massive destruction and death. In the thinking of a significant part of those working to impose this, it is on the record that this is precisely the intention. Control of, enfeeblement of industrial societies which in itself must kill, and the declared aim of reducing the worlds population.
Exterminating humanity.
The degree to which you or others share these aims is unknown. You cannot however claim that you are unaware that these things constitute a powerful driving motivation as part of this agenda.
You are therefore implicated. The degree to which you approach this dishonestly, and seek to benefit directly from it, is the degree to which you are guilty. Such people will be judged. And condemned.
From the “we-exclude-data-that-doesn’t-agree-with-our-theory” department:
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
(numerous measurements of CO2 well over 400 ppmv in 1820s, 1930s, …)
Mišo Alkalaj says:
May 2, 2013 at 1:15 am
From the “we exclude data which aren’t remotely connected with real world background CO2 levels”:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Sorry, but while I admire the tremendous amount of work that the late Ernst Beck has done, there are too many problems with the historical data…
Main problems with the historical data:
– Many samples were taken over land near huge sources and sinks. One can find levels between 250 and 600 ppmv within one day in a semi-rural setting when there is inversion at night and a sunny day for photosynthesis.
– The late Beck didn’t do any quality control. The good, the bad and the ugly were simply averaged: data from one side of the world at 400 ppmv with 200 ppmv from the other side, in the same year. Some methods had an accuracy not better than +/- 150 ppmv…
– The 1942 “peak” is not visible in any other proxy (including stomata data), neither in ice cores. The “peak” is the equivalent of burning 1/3rd of all vegetation on earth in 7 years and growing it again in the same time span. There are no known sources and especially no sinks which can have done that.
– Samples taken over the oceans or coastal with wind from the ocean show values around the ice core data for the same age. Todays stations are mainly in such places or deserts or on the South Pole, and show minimal contamination.
@ jc re: 2148, 5/1/13 — WAY —- TO — GO! Thunderously well done. A tour de force.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 11:44 am
….Firstly, I talked about changes to volcanism. And volcanism varies. Phil talked about hydrothermal vents. The difference is profound. Wicki says this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
Submarine volcanoes are underwater fissures in the Earth’s surface from which magma can erupt. They are estimated to account for 75% of annual magma output. The vast majority are located near areas of tectonic plate movement, known as ocean ridges…..
Richard, I have the impression that submarine volcanoes are still vastly underestimated. The 75% of magma output would almost make a fair distribution about what is continental surface and oceans. However the ocean crust is thinner then the continental crust, therefore I would expect submarine volcanoes to be disproportionally large represented, and not about proportional to the surface.
See also:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
“The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.”
“The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.”
Lars P.:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at May 2, 2013 at 1:58 pm.
You may be right that undersea volcanism is greatly underestimated. Whether or not that is true, undersea volcanism is certainly greater than observed volcanism.
Importantly, in the context of the putative effect of undersea volcanism on sulphur ions in the ocean, the suggestion of Phil. is plain daft. He suggests that because the sulphur from black smokers is deposited as insoluble solid salts then the same is true for volcanic sulphur. This suggestion is plain daft and he only provides it as an example of his usual trolling disinformation.
Cooling lava releases sulphur at much cooler temperatures than black smokers and, therefore, lava does release sulphate ions which are carried in the ocean water: indeed, as I said, this is observed. And we would not exist if it were not so.
Sulphur is sequestered by rocks (this is why sulphurous acid rain is so damaging to e.g. limestone). It is returned to the atmosphere by plate tectonics via emissions from volcanism. Thus, the sulphur cycle is sustained, and without it all life on land would die. Phytoplankton sequester sulphur ions from the oceans and emit it as DMS (dimethlsulphide and related compounds) which is an insoluble gas so it rises to the air and breaks down to form sulphur oxides (SOx) which are washed from the air by rain. All life on land would die without the sulphur provided to the land by rain.
If Phil. were right then the sulphur cycle would almost cease because only volcanism above the oceans would be available to sustain it.
The trouble with warmunists is that they will ignore any reality to promote their agenda.
Please note that I am not saying the volcanic hypothesis is right. I am pointing out that it is one possible explanation for a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The possibility of this explanation alone invalidates the “what else could have done it?” and the ‘mass balance’ arguments as evidence that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the major cause of the rise.
Richard
Richard
A couple of years ago I was attending a dinner at Cambridge university and sat next to a volcanologist. They told me that the latest thinking was that there were 10000 times more underwater volcanoes than previously thought but there was little active research being carried out on the subject
The context of this information was that the person who told me this was sincere but whether or not it is correct is another matter and if it is what that as regards It’s effect on the climate is something the appropriate experts on the subject need to debate.
Tonyb
@Janice Moore says:
May 2, 2013 at 12:03 pm
It is good to see people responding to these issues.
People seem to have become habituated to “trolls” and simply accept that this is just part of the rough and tumble of life and/or this issue. And to a degree that is true.
There will always be some who deliberately annoy – or perhaps most people will at some time lapse into gamesmanship or disruption for the sake of it, and on occasion be loathe to acknowledge that they have been wrong, or that someone has “bested” them in an argument.
But there is a different level to this as well.
Not just on this issue but any there are those who deliberately, strategically, attempt to subvert intelligent exchange of information and ideas, and therefore try to sabotage intelligence itself.
And render people incapable of properly grasping what is occurring in the world.
When this done in service of a particular strategic aim that effects those very people, this is a gross betrayal of human trust.
This is what is happening here. These are no idle, personal interactions. This is not about the right to hold opinions or the foibles of people that inevitably are part of any mix.
These people are deliberate. They have an agenda. Their prosecution of that agenda is done in a way that is anathema to intelligence and civilized behaviour.
They are FULLY aware of that. That is EXACTLY why they do it. They are trying GET SOMETHING by destroying the capacity for others to judge whether what they want should happen.
In this case, what they want, they are fully aware will cause destruction and in fact kill.
This is evil.
What really worries me about this sort of ‘Pliocenic logic’ is that the CAGWers (pronounced See Ay Gee Dubyas) automatically assume that mankind doesn’t have it in its power to rapidly increase the rate of global sequestration should we figure out over the next few decades or more that yes, there is too much warming developing. Their logic tells us on the one hand that the one thing mankind does best is pour too much CO2 into the atmosphere, but on the other hand the ONLY thing we can do in response (in between incessant hand wringing) is to, in effect, all make a rapid goose step backwards and, in addition, there is no hope for the currently starving billions on this planet – they are just fortunate to be our future role models.
On the contrary, I assert the Pliocene and the planet’s ‘natural recovery’ from it tells us exactly what we would need to do. As an Aussie I can confidently assert that it is quite easy to both dig up and transport across the oceans mind boggling tonnages of finely divided iron ore. We already have plenty of scrap iron. All we need to do is divert a certain amount of that ore directly into the surfaces of the oceans. This would vastly stimulate the oceanic ‘standing crop’ crop of cyanobacteria (aka approx. 47% of the planets living biomass), sequester vast amounts of CO2, put a significant fraction of that into the oceans’ depths via the settling flux, reverse acidification and synchronously massively stimulate the world’s fisheries (thereby feeding the currently starving billions more effectively). At the same time, the increased flux of biotic cloud nuclei would also enhance the planetary albedo and hence rate of cooling. Bingo!
Now why is that sort of thing proscribed by the CAGWers? Where does it say that sackcloth and ashes and starvation must be the compulsory responses to CAGW? Is it a ‘religion thang’?
Steve Short:
At May 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm you suggest iron seeding as a geoengineering solution to AGW.
There is a safer and cheaper possible method. One only has to stop removing sulphur from aviation fuel used on long-haul flights over the oceans. The resulting emitted SOx would seed cirrus clouds to increase albedo with resulting reduction to solar heating of the Earth’s surface.
This would be safer because there is no direct disturbance of the biosphere and because the SOx washes out of the air in days so the activity could be very rapidly stopped in the unlikely event of observed adverse effects. It would be cheaper because – at present – removing the sulphur from aviation fuel has costs.
In an article on WUWT I suggested funding research of this cloud forming activity as an option for politicians wishing to retreat from policies based on (or justified by) AGW.
Importantly, nothing would need to be done (including no geoengineering, no windfarms, no Carbon Taxes, no etc.) in response to AGW unless and until problems from AGW were detected. In that unlikely event then the ‘aviation fuel’ geoengineering could provide an immediate correction to AGW while other actions were considered.
Unfortunately, many readers failed to understand the political ploy which I was suggesting and thought I was advocating the geoengineering. I have not been invited to provide a WUWT Guest Article since.
My article suggesting the political ploy is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/stopping-climate-change/
Richard
Richard Courtney:
Conversely, I would note that not removing sulfur from the heavy fuel oil use to run the world’s ships would possibly achieve comparable results, particularly in seeding the all important low altitude cumulus. My father served in the Pacific theatre in WWI and personally showed me his photos of long lines of clouds associated with the movements of large US and Australian/NZ fleets of ships. Very impressive. I’d hazard a guess that more commercial shipping crosses the world’s oceans than do planes cross the skies.
Secondly, the oceanic seeding with iron ore stimulates the cyanobacteria (which abstract dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate) thereby reducing the tendency to acidification with increasing CO2. Thirdly it would also be restorative of the world’s fisheries – already showing signs of a significant depletion and a reducing food source, especially for the world’s poor. This strategy supports the Third World and thus should attract their support.
I contend oceanic iron seeding would also be safe because the FexOy precipitates/settles out of the water in days so the ocean seeding activity could also be very rapidly stopped in the unlikely event of observed adverse effects. This is proven by the well-studied fact that oceanic cyanobacteria blooms and dies after episodes of major wind-driven dust fallout from the continents – especially deserts and volcanic areas like the Andes.
Finally, seeding high altitude cirrus still doesn’t sequester CO2 if that should truly and honestly prove, in the goodness of time, to really be the core issue claimed.
So, let’s not demonize the word ‘geoengineering’ ahead of time without good cause. The debasement and demonization of our language is a favored Orwellian tactic of the warmists which we should resist the tendency to emulate.
Sorry, typo – WWII not WWI.
Steve Short:
I did not “demonize” anything. I ask you to read my article which I linked.
I copy the link to here for your convenience
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/stopping-climate-change/
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Please note that I am not saying the volcanic hypothesis is right. I am pointing out that it is one possible explanation for a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The possibility of this explanation alone invalidates the “what else could have done it?” and the ‘mass balance’ arguments as evidence that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the major cause of the rise.
While a lot is unknown of several cycles in the oceans, the volcanic path is refuted by several observations:
– Most important in the cycle is sulphate, which is formed from oxydation of H2S or SO2 from undersea volcanoes and/or above ground volcanoes (and human emissions of high sulphur coal). This sulphate reduces the pH quite importantly. But there are no signs of an increase in sulphates in the oceans.
– The increase in the atmosphere follows human emissions at an incredible fixed rate (R^2: 0.9988). Any natural cause should do the same, but in general, natural causes are known for their high variability… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
– In the past decades, DIC is increasing everywhere in the oceans surfaces. If acidification was at work, DIC would decrease, not increase. This shows that the net CO2 flow is from atmosphere to ocean surface, not reverse.
– The 13C/12C ratio of the deep oceans (0-1 per mil) is higher than of the atmosphere (at -8 per mil). The 13C/12C ratio of the ocean surface is much higher than of the atmosphere (1-5 per mil). Any substantial release of extra CO2 from the oceans would INcrease the 13/12C ratio in the atmosphere, even taking into account the isotopic differentiation at the water-air border. But we see an ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio, in lockstep with human emissions.
Last but not least, the mass balance argument:
Humans emit some 8 GtC/year as CO2 (about 4 ppmv) directly into the atmosphere. Any substantial net release from the oceans adds to these 8 GtC/year. But the net increase in the atmosphere is only halve of the 8 GtC. If the oceans were a net source, then another reservoir must be a net sink for the difference. The only fast net sink is vegetation. But the net sink by vegetation can be calculated from the oxygen use or production. That shows that vegetation is a net sink for not more than 1 GtC/yr (0.5 ppmv/yr). Thus the oceans also are a net sink for CO2, not a net source, because other CO2 sinks like rock weathering are much too slow. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
In figures:
If x = extra emissions from ocean acidification then the mass balance is as follows:
increase in atmosphere = emissions + x + other natural sources – natural sinks
4 GtC/yr = 8 GtC/yr + x + other natural sources – natural sinks
or
x + other natural sources – natural sinks = -4 GtC/yr
Thus nature is a net sink of 4 GtC/yr (+/- 2 GtC/yr natural variability), whatever x may be.
Wherever the 4 GtC (2 ppmv) difference from the mass balance might be captured, nature as a whole is a net sink of CO2, not a source, including all direct or incirect extra sources from volcanoes or ocean acidification. And the oceans are net sinks as CO2 in average is going from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At May 3, 2013 at 5:00 am you say
I assume that if you knew of such “observations” then you would have cited them.
Instead, you have cited “observations” which do not refute it.
You say
True. The data are too space over time and space for such an increase to be observed with required accuracy and precision.
Lack of ability to observe is not an “observation” which refutes anything.
You say
That is not “observations”: it is two arguments by assertion.
The emissions and the CO2 rise do correlate because both are rising. This cannot be logically inferred to indicate that either one “follows” the other. Please state the r^2 for the detrended data adjusted for autocorrelation.
And the adjustment of the system to an altered equilibrium could be a “natural cause” and would also induce the “incredibly fixed rate” of rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
You say
No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293226
You say
Again, the “ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio” is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. The anthropogenic emission is to the air and the net flux is from the air to the ocean surface. I again refer you to my previous explanations in this thread e.g. in the link I provide in this post.
You say
Whatever the merits of the ‘mass balance argument” it is not relevant to the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. This hypothesis considers redistributions of carbon in the total system in response to an altered equilibrium of the system. The anthropogenic carbon is such a small addition to the carbon in the total system that it is irrelevant. Indeed, this is why the hypothesis predicts the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the anthropogenic emission exists. Again, I refer you to my previous explanations in this thread e.g. in the link I provide in this post.
Richard
Ferdinand:
OOPS! I made misprint!
I intended to write
“True. The data are too sparce over time and space for such an increase to be observed with required accuracy and precision.”
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Importantly, in the context of the putative effect of undersea volcanism on sulphur ions in the ocean, the suggestion of Phil. is plain daft. He suggests that because the sulphur from black smokers is deposited as insoluble solid salts then the same is true for volcanic sulphur.
No I did not make such a suggestion, that is a clear fabrication by you. I quite clearly stated before ever mentioning sulphide emissions that the most important sulphur containing ion was sulphate but that sulphate was one of the constant composition ions in the oceans so that your proposed mechanism which required variable SO4– and thereby a change in pH could not work because it is contrary to observations. I also gave references (something you notably fail to do in support of your argument), clearly you didn’t take the trouble to read them. Not that I expected you to since you are so convinced of your position that the last thing you need is evidence against it, hopefully others here will read the references and see the error of your ways.
This suggestion is plain daft and he only provides it as an example of his usual trolling disinformation.
Since I made no such suggestion it says nothing about me or my posts, it does provides an example of your dissembling ways however.
Cooling lava releases sulphur at much cooler temperatures than black smokers and, therefore, lava does release sulphate ions which are carried in the ocean water: indeed, as I said, this is observed. And we would not exist if it were not so.
Sulphur is sequestered by rocks (this is why sulphurous acid rain is so damaging to e.g. limestone). It is returned to the atmosphere by plate tectonics via emissions from volcanism. Thus, the sulphur cycle is sustained, and without it all life on land would die. Phytoplankton sequester sulphur ions from the oceans and emit it as DMS (dimethlsulphide and related compounds) which is an insoluble gas so it rises to the air and breaks down to form sulphur oxides (SOx) which are washed from the air by rain. All life on land would die without the sulphur provided to the land by rain.
If Phil. were right then the sulphur cycle would almost cease because only volcanism above the oceans would be available to sustain it.
No, the observation is that the concentration of sulphate in the ocean is constant and that is a result of sinks and sources being balanced which leaves no room for your hypothesis of pH change due to variation in sulphate due to undersea volcanoes!
Direct observations of erupting submarine volcanoes show emissions of elemental sulphur rather than sulphate, for example:
“Unlike volcanic plumes on land, however, the ‘clouds’ are not formed of steam but instead are composed of tiny dispersed droplets of molten sulfur, or brimstone, an ancient name for sulfur. The bubbles are filled with CO2, all that remains of the magmatic gas after the original water and sulfur have condensed to liquid (water) or solid (sulfur) phases. The lava fragments provide hints of what is happening in the vent, behind the curtain of sulfur clouds.”
http://nwrota2009.blogspot.com/2009/04/fire-and-brimstone.html
The trouble with warmunists is that they will ignore any reality to promote their agenda.
The trouble with you, Richard, is that you ignore reality to promote your agenda, this being a perfect example.
Please note that I am not saying the volcanic hypothesis is right. I am pointing out that it is one possible explanation for a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The possibility of this explanation alone invalidates the “what else could have done it?” and the ‘mass balance’ arguments as evidence that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the major cause of the rise.
The scientific evidence shows that this is an impossible explanation and therefore it is rejected, it invalidates nothing. Your being able to dream up hypotheses which are at variance with the facts is an irrelevancy. You thought of something, didn’t wonder why scientists hadn’t proposed it already, didn’t examine the facts to see if it was possible, well it doesn’t fit with the facts so move on. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing because humans are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be removed by natural sinks.
Friends:
I read the recent long and silly post from Phil. Thus, I have saved anybody wasting time reading it in hope of edification. Nobody need bother.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:50 am
Steve Short:
At May 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm you suggest iron seeding as a geoengineering solution to AGW.
There is a safer and cheaper possible method. One only has to stop removing sulphur from aviation fuel used on long-haul flights over the oceans. The resulting emitted SOx would seed cirrus clouds to increase albedo with resulting reduction to solar heating of the Earth’s surface.
It is not clear that seeding of cirrus would have the effect you suggest, it could go either way. See NASA, “The greenhouse effect is weak for low altitude clouds, so their albedo effect dominates and they cool the Earth’s climate. In contrast, cold high altitude cirrus clouds may either cool or warm the climate. They have a strong greenhouse effect, which may outweigh their albedo effect losses.”
This would be safer because there is no direct disturbance of the biosphere and because the SOx washes out of the air in days so the activity could be very rapidly stopped in the unlikely event of observed adverse effects. It would be cheaper because – at present – removing the sulphur from aviation fuel has costs.
And benefits, reduced corrosion, reduced particulate emissions on takeoff, improved combustion efficiency, etc.
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 7:39 am
Friends:
I read the recent long and silly post from Phil. Thus, I have saved anybody wasting time reading it in hope of edification. Nobody need bother.
Translation, please don’t read the rebuttal of my post or read any of the evidence of the science which rejects my hypothesis, or see that in my post I completely misrepresented what Phil. said.
As Ferdinand said: “Richard, you are a master in diverting the attention from the main points in the discussion towards irrelevant details.” To which I would add ‘avoiding answering any scientific rebuttal of his posts’.
Friends:
I can remove something unpleasant from the bottom of my shoe, but I prefer to take care where I put my feet. That way I don’t need to interact with such unpleasant material.
Similarly, I could respond to the troll’s attempts to goad me into giving publicity to his falsehoods. I don’t need to interact with such unpleasant material, and I won’t.
Just so everybody knows.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 8:24 am
Similarly, I could respond to the troll’s attempts to goad me into giving publicity to his falsehoods. I don’t need to interact with such unpleasant material, and I won’t.
Your choice, but there are no falsehoods by me there, perhaps you are embarrassed about yours being exposed?
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At May 3, 2013 at 5:00 am you say
“there are no signs of an increase in sulphates in the oceans.”
True. The data are too space over time and space for such an increase to be observed with required accuracy and precision.
And yet you quoted the concentration of sulphate with impressive precision as: 2.649 mg/L
Your assertion of lack of precision and accuracy needs support, the reference I gave says you’re wrong.
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf
No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293226
Given the observation that SO4– is not changing there will be no associated change in DIC.
You say
“Last but not least, the mass balance argument:”
Whatever the merits of the ‘mass balance argument” it is not relevant to the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. This hypothesis considers redistributions of carbon in the total system in response to an altered equilibrium of the system. The anthropogenic carbon is such a small addition to the carbon in the total system that it is irrelevant. Indeed, this is why the hypothesis predicts the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the anthropogenic emission exists. Again, I refer you to my previous explanations in this thread e.g. in the link I provide in this post.
The increase in anthropogenic carbon is ~double the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, hardly irrelevant!
@ Phil.
You will not answer the question. It is against your instinct to be frank, regardless of implication, since you do not want to be fully visible at any time or any circumstance.
You have read my comments. You know the actual results of your agenda and the way you seek to insinuate it. There is no sanctity based on professed ignorance for you.
Whether you like it or not, you are SEEN. And KNOWN.
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
I assume that if you knew of such “observations” then you would have cited them.
Instead, you have cited “observations” which do not refute it.
The 13C/12C ratio of all ocean waters, deep and surface all show (much) higher values than of the atmosphere. Any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we see a steady decline:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
That alone is sufficient to refute every theory that results in substantial net releases from the oceans.
Such a decline was never seen in ice cores or tree carbon over any time frame for millions of years.
No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
Your explanation was and is in contradiction with the chemical equilibria of seawater: either there is acidification and CO2 is released into the atmosphere and DIC decreases in seawater, or there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is absorbed by the oceans surfaces, which increases DIC and lowers the pH of seawater. If both are happening at the same time, then DIC decides which one is the most important.
Some 3 million samples of seawater show an increase in DIC everywhere in all oceans, including at the upwelling places of deep ocean waters.
Again, the “ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio” is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. The anthropogenic emission is to the air and the net flux is from the air to the ocean surface.
Not possible: the effect of an exogenic setpoint change by changing the ocean pH will decrease DIC and increase CO2 in the atmosphere, and the increase in the atmosphere would be higher than the emissions alone.
But, back to basics: to increase the setpoint of the water-air equilibrium, an acidification of the oceans will decrease DIC. At some point, human emissions increase CO2 in the atmosphere above the new equilibrium and start to increase DIC. Since DIC measurements were taken in series from around 1984, these show an increase over time. That means that at least since 1984, all increase in the atmosphere is not from the oceans. That is about halve the total increase since the industrial revolution.
Moreover, the pCO2 measurements taken since the International Geophysical Year (1957) show a net uptake of CO2 by the oceans:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6238&page=20
That means that near all increase in the atmosphere measured since Mauna Loa is not from ocean acidification, but reverse.
While there were DIC measurements taken too, these are not published.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 3, 2013 at 9:53 am
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
“I assume that if you knew of such “observations” then you would have cited them.
Instead, you have cited “observations” which do not refute it.”
“No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am”
Your explanation was and is in contradiction with the chemical equilibria of seawater: either there is acidification and CO2 is released into the atmosphere and DIC decreases in seawater, or there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is absorbed by the oceans surfaces, which increases DIC and lowers the pH of seawater. If both are happening at the same time, then DIC decides which one is the most important.
Some 3 million samples of seawater show an increase in DIC everywhere in all oceans, including at the upwelling places of deep ocean waters.
“Again, the “ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio” is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. The anthropogenic emission is to the air and the net flux is from the air to the ocean surface.”
Not possible: the effect of an exogenic setpoint change by changing the ocean pH will decrease DIC and increase CO2 in the atmosphere, and the increase in the atmosphere would be higher than the emissions alone.
But, back to basics: to increase the setpoint of the water-air equilibrium, an acidification of the oceans will decrease DIC. At some point, human emissions increase CO2 in the atmosphere above the new equilibrium and start to increase DIC. Since DIC measurements were taken in series from around 1984, these show an increase over time. That means that at least since 1984, all increase in the atmosphere is not from the oceans. That is about halve the total increase since the industrial revolution.
Moreover, the pCO2 measurements taken since the International Geophysical Year (1957) show a net uptake of CO2 by the oceans:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6238&page=20
That means that near all increase in the atmosphere measured since Mauna Loa is not from ocean acidification, but reverse.
While there were DIC measurements taken too, these are not published.
You’re probably aware of it Ferdinand but here is a paper with DIC measurements off Hawaii.
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/lab/dkarl/1998MarChem60-33-47.pdf
It shows an increase in DIC consistent with the measured increase in pCO2.
Phil. says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:13 pm
You’re probably aware of it Ferdinand but here is a paper with DIC measurements off Hawaii.
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/lab/dkarl/1998MarChem60-33-47.pdf
It shows an increase in DIC consistent with the measured increase in pCO2.
I was aware of the DIC figures in it, as that was reported in some conference, together with the BATS (Bermuda) continuous series. Unfortunately not anymore online. The BATS series started in 1984, a few years before Hawaii. I was searching for earlier measurements since the International Geophysical Year (1957) when a lot of measurements were taken, often sustained in following years, but only pCO2 data are published, which show a general, increasing flux from the atmosphere into the oceans.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at May 3, 2013 at 9:53 am.
PLEASE READ THE POST YOU CLAIM TO BE ANSWERING.
You have ignored everything I wrote. For example, I have stated that the net flux is expected to be from the atmosphere to the ocean.
I HAVE SAID THAT FOUR TIMES NOW.
But you argue that the net flux is from the atmosphere to the ocean as though that somehow disputes what I have said. IT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY.
Your argument about DIC is false. The carbonate buffer does not maintain pH balance when there is an input of SO4.
“Some 3 million samples of seawater” over 50 years is a completely inadequate sample of the oceans over 50 years. Assume 300 samples a per year (i.e. less than one a day) and you only have 200 sample points for the entire ocean coverage of the world. And most of those are not consistent because they are taken from ships at different places.
SO4 varies in the oceans.
Typically it is said to be 2.649 mg/L
In the Eastern Mediterranean 2.950 mg/L
In the Arabian Gulf at Kuwait 3.200 mg/L
3 million samples sounds a lot until one recognises that the oceans are big, the sample points move, there 365 days in a year, and the samples have been obtained over 50 years.
The data is just not available to determine how the alkalinity has varied as a result of sulphur variation. Especially when ocean pH varies greatly at each place over hours .
For example this from Scripps
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1234
Any sulphur from undersea volcanism would reach the surface layer in upwellings.
But you and the troll claim the pH has not varied. The data does NOT show that.
Your argument says these measured effects are “not possible”.
Sorry, Ferdinand, they happen. They are observed, and they are measured.
Richard
In other news, 37 trillion plants breathe a sigh of relief.
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Richard, the dispute is if the acidification is the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any decrease in pH will decrease DIC and increase CO2 in the atmosphere, until a new equilibrium is reached. That is the only way that an exogenic acidification can be responsible for an increase in the atmosphere. But as you confirm, the current CO2 flows are from the atmosphere into the oceans, as can be seen in sparce measurements since 1957 and increasing number of measurements since 1984.
That effectively refutes your argument that acidification is a possible cause of the increase, because at no moment over the past 50+ years there is any indication of the reverse trend. Not in direct measurements of pCO2, DIC, neither in 13C/12C ratio as found in coralline sponges (since 1600) until 200 m depth and in the atmosphere. 3 million measurements that confirm the CO2 flows from the atmosphere into the oceans, zero that confirm the reverse. Good enough for me.
Of course, there are differences in DIC and pH from place to place and from season to season or even within hours, esoecially near estuaria and upwelling places, I never said that the pH (or DIC) doesn’t vary. But this is about trends, which show an increase in DIC everywhere in all oceans over time, including at upwelling places.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at May 4, 2013 at 1:45 am.
No! Simply, No!
Argument by assertion in contravention of the evidence simply will not do.
Your post only contains two assertions and in this thread I have repeatedly refuted each of them by presenting evidence that your assertions are not true.
The carbonate buffer does NOT return ocean pH to the DIC equilibrium state when additional dissolved sulphur is injected into the ocean surface layer.
The dissolved sulphur alters the equilibrium state (this is similar to temperature change which also alters the equilibrium state). And sulphur from undersea volcanism centuries ago may have provided the sulphur injection, with the result of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Your post does not mention sulphur ions which are the putative cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration according to the volcanism hypothesis!
You do NOT falsify the hypothesis by not considering the hypothesis.
There is NOT sufficient data to determine whether or not the dissolved sulphur has changed in the ocean.
I know you believe the cause of the rise in atmosphertic CO2 concentration is the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. But your complete failure to refute the volcanism hypothesis demonstrates that your belief is exactly that: i.e. it is a matter of faith and not evidence.
The anthropogenic CO2 emission may be the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but other possible causes exist (e.g. the volcanism hypothesis) and at present it is not possible to know which if any of the existing possibilities is the actual cause.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 4, 2013 at 2:16 am
The carbonate buffer does NOT return ocean pH to the DIC equilibrium state when additional dissolved sulphur is injected into the ocean surface layer.
Richard, now you are changing the subject: the original subject was that a change in pH would change the equilibrium in the oceans and between the oceans and the atmosphere, thus a possible cause of the rise in the atmosphere. Now it is the increase in sulpur (sulphide, sulphite, sulphate?) ions that does the job? Even if there are no observations for such an increase at all?
Nevertheless, whatever the change in the oceans (salt content, pH, temperature), the fact that the CO2 flow is from the atmosphere into the oceans simply proves that the increase in the atmosphere is larger than the change in equilibrium caused by any or all of these probable causes. Thus these variables are not the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, at least not over the past 50+ years with an increase of 80 ppmv, that is 80% of the increase over the past 160 years.