CO2 calculation in the global carbon cycle may be off due to a depth error

It seems that a simple assumption about where to measure CO2 in the ocean surface has drastic implications. via The Hockey Schtick

New paper finds global carbon cycle datasets may be biased

A paper published today in Global Biogeochemical Cycles finds prior calculations of the global carbon cycle may be erroneous because such calculations are based upon partial pressures of CO2 from several meters below the ocean surface instead of CO2 levels at the ocean surface ["the boundary layer"] where CO2 is actually exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean.

The authors find a “strong” CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry’s Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers. The paper finds higher levels of CO2 in the boundary layer than in the 5 meter deep global datasets, which would suggest that either the oceans are less of a sink for CO2 or a larger source of CO2 to the atmosphere than previously assumed.

The authors recommend, “Observations of pCO2 just beneath the air-sea boundary layer should be further investigated in order to estimate possible biases in calculating global air-sea CO2 fluxes.”

The paper:

Prevalence of strong vertical CO2 and O2 variability in the top meters of the ocean

Maria Ll. Calleja et al

Abstract:

The gradient in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) across the air-sea boundary layer is the main driving force for the air-sea CO2 flux. Global data-bases for surface seawater pCO2 are actually based on pCO2 measurements from several meters below the sea surface, assuming a homogeneous distribution between the diffusive boundary layer and the upper top meters of the ocean.

Compiling vertical profiles of pCO2, Temperature and dissolved oxygen in the upper 5-8 meters of the ocean from different biogeographical areas, we detected a mean difference between the boundary layer and 5 [meters below the surface] pCO2 of 13 ± 1 µatm. Temperature gradients accounted for only 11 % of this pCO2 gradient in the top meters of the ocean, thus, pointing to a heterogeneous biological activity underneath the air-sea boundary layer as the main factor controlling the top meters pCO2 variability.

Observations of pCO2 just beneath the air-sea boundary layer should be further investigated in order to estimate possible biases in calculating global air-sea CO2 fluxes.

About these ads

73 thoughts on “CO2 calculation in the global carbon cycle may be off due to a depth error

  1. That is not a “depth error” that is a stuff up. The notion that CO2 partial pressures might cary with depth is hardly PhD stuff. Sounds pretty much like “climate science” business as usual though. Nothing really to see here folks, move along.

  2. Friends:

    The article says

    The authors find a “strong” CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry’s Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers. The paper finds higher levels of CO2 in the boundary layer than in the 5 meter deep global datasets, which would suggest that either the oceans are less of a sink for CO2 or a larger source of CO2 to the atmosphere than previously assumed.

    The authors recommend, “Observations of pCO2 just beneath the air-sea boundary layer should be further investigated in order to estimate possible biases in calculating global air-sea CO2 fluxes.”

    For many years and in many places I have been saying that biological activity in the ocean surface layer means Henry’s Law is not applicable for calculation of air/ocean CO2 exchange. I have repeatedly said it on WUWT most recently in the Salby thread which discussed the carbon cycle for weeks

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1391907

    where I wrote

    However, I agree with Ferdinand that the atmospheric CO2 concentration rise must be an oceanic effect if temperature is – as Bart claims – the causal variable. But this says nothing concerning whether Ferdinand or Bart is right because it does NOT exclude either of their interpretations.

    As I said, the rise may result from a change in the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. In that case, the predominant change is probably alteration to the exchange rate of CO2 between the ocean surface layer and the deep ocean. Biota in the ocean surface layer will ‘process’ CO2 at rates affected by CO2 concentration, nutrient supply, temperature, and pH. This makes Henry’s Law inapplicable, and dead biota transfer carbon to the deep ocean.

    {emphasis added: RSC}

    Indeed, this has been a major disagreement between Ferdinand Engelbeen and me in our debates of the carbon cycle which has been vigorously contested for over a decade.

    It is good to see climate science at last catching up with what has always been obvious.

    Richard

  3. Did I detect that the authors do not state that they actually MEASURED the CO2 in these water layers, but inferred them from some data about biological entities ?

    Now in quiet (unroiled) surface waters, we usually find a negative Temperature gradient with depth, except for the top few microns of surface water, where evaporative cooling occurs.

    But then there is a significant drop in Temperature with depth, leading to increasing CO2 and other solubility increase with depth.

    This would establish a downward diffusion of CO2 from the surface driven by the solubility gradient.

    CO2 preferentially diffuses to deeper colder water, rather than shallower warmer water, so a continuous CO2 pumping process occurs, depleting the surface waters in CO2

    If solar heating warms the surface layer, the outgassing of CO2 will be diminished by the fact that the surface CO2 is depleted below its Henry’s law value by the Temperature gradient pumping.

    So please, can I see some real MEASURED CO2 versus depth, with enough resolution to see what is really going on.

    I’m a skeptic as to their thesis; they need to convince me with measurements, not models.

  4. With the now overwhelming failure of atmospheric climate models clearly visible we now see the battle of conjecture and assertion of climate alarmism moving more and more to the even less researched field of the oceans. This research does not bode well for the credibility of all the alarmists that have now started to use hyperbole in the extreme in trying to assert that man made CO2 emissions are going to destroy all ocean life by 2100 based on the ph bogeyman they have conjured up. The fact that the natural variability of ocean chemistry has huge ranges which even the limited field research shows doesn’t seem to phase the ocean alarmists. They claim that a change of 0.3 to 0.4 in ph will be devastating to marine life. The fact that already existing filed measurements of ocean ph show this parameter varies by many factor larger than this amount doesn’t enter their arguments.

  5. …next thing you know, they will discover algae and plankton

    Chemistry is easy…..chemical biology is hard

  6. I see some complaints about this paper for using existing data sets to infer a theory. However, i respect any authors who but out a theory and recommend that experimental data be gathered to prove/disprove it.

  7. george e. smith:

    At August 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/co2-calculation-in-the-glovbal-carbon-cycle-may-be-off-due-to-a-depth-error/#comment-1404970

    You ask

    Did I detect that the authors do not state that they actually MEASURED the CO2 in these water layers, but inferred them from some data about biological entities ?

    No, I don’t think you did “detect” that because the article says

    The authors find a “strong” CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry’s Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers.

    and this agrees with the abstract of the paper which says

    Global data-bases for surface seawater pCO2 are actually based on pCO2 measurements from several meters below the sea surface, assuming a homogeneous distribution between the diffusive boundary layer and the upper top meters of the ocean. Compiling vertical profiles of pCO2, Temperature and dissolved oxygen in the upper 5-8 meters of the ocean from different biogeographical areas, we detected a mean difference between the boundary layer and 5 m pCO2 of 13 ± 1 µatm.

    So, it seems your rant about not using measurements is mistaken because the entire analysis is based on measurements.

    Richard

  8. Latitude says:
    August 31, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    …next thing you know, they will discover algae and plankton

    Chemistry is easy…..chemical biology is hard

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Biology, the only science where multiplication and division are the same thing….

  9. Ursus Augustus says: August 31, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    ‘That is not a “depth error” that is a stuff up. The notion that CO2 partial pressures might cary with depth is hardly PhD stuff. Sounds pretty much like “climate science” business as usual though.’

    Notice something here? The disgram used to illustrate, with bio cycles and all, is from the NOAA site. No-one doubts that details of CO2 exchange at the surface are complex. Still, it happens, and when people observe CO2 at 10m depth or whatever, it shows that it got there.

    [diagram? Mod]

  10. The AIRS data clearly shows high precipitation areas have lower atmospheric CO2 than Low precipitation areas.
    Rain absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and moves it into the oceans. Gas exchange is minor at the ocean surface in comparison the to huge surface area of water droplets in precipitation systems.
    It would also explain the CO2 rich surface layer.

  11. Nick, it just shows that it’s there…not that it got there
    biological processes in the ocean work just like they do on land…there’s a reason it is aerobic

  12. Yet another example about how little supposed experts know. The AGW advocates make financial and military analysts look like geniuses in comparison.

  13. If this is true, which wouldn’t surprise me as mainstream activists tend to have nil interest in finding and correcting subtle CAGW-movement- convenient errors, if the oceans have been less of a CO2 sink than commonly assumed, that means more of human CO2 emissions have to be going somewhere else (for observations place a limit on increase in the atmosphere), which means more into vegetation and soil. So CO2 fertilization bonuses are likely even greater than previous mass exchange calculations would suggest. The real picture would include talking properly about beneficial extra vegetation growth, rather than trying to hide its mention with just so-called “missing sink” references.

  14. The problem with all this CO2 ocean-cycling info is the pitiful state of the data and thus our understanding of the magnitude and importance of natural processes.. Take a few hundred (at best) measurements under certain constrained ocean conditions and you do have some data.

    The problem, though, is that there is poor understanding of NON_SAMPLED conditions and places. Did they take samples in nasty weather with massive seas and spume entraining the atmosphere – increasing molecular transport by orders of magnitude perhaps ? ETC. etc. Did they take random replicated samples in large enough series to get rigorous statistical significance ? 99.9 percent chance of NO.

    Until we do the observational science that yields accurate evaluations of the importance and magnitude of the myriad physical & biological processes controlling the gas exchange between ocean and atmosphere. we are essentially blind.

  15. Robert JM

    Right on. It continues to amaze me that the role of fresh water (which has lots of CO2) and ice (which has none) in the carbon cycle gets so little attention. It is obvious that 1 meter of rainfall with 1125 pm CO2 going into the ocean which are 620ppm makes a difference. Whatever gas exchange is taking place they should add 3 billion tons of CO2 per metre of rainfall.

    These are not small influences, taken together.

  16. So they recon that only 11% of the excess CO2 at the surface compared to 5 meters depth is explicable by Henry’s Law. The implication is that 89% of the excess or 11.5 micro atm is biological. Ferdinand claims that the atmospheric pCO2 is 7 micro atm above equilibrium with the ocean. One wonders with the surface or at 5m? If Ferdinand’s ships were sampling at 5m, his 7 atmospheric surplus becomes a 6 atmospheric deficit in relation to the surface, essentially changing sign.

    What would this mean? Carbon Dioxide loves to swim. This proclivity plus a small net biological sink or even a biological balace would mean the atmosphere cannot supply the ocean fast enough to achieve equilibrium.

  17. And this doesn’t even address errors in estimates of volcanic CO2 emissions. Chances are, there’s a warmist thumb on every measure of CO2 in the global carbon cycle.

  18. Interesting paper. It has always puzzled me how more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year from all sources, in theory, should be causing a warmer atmosphere, yet according to the IPCC’s AR4, it is only the 3% of this CO2 from human activity that is of concern, and is so dangerous to the planet, and must be regulated. How the overwhelming 97% of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year from natural sources is of no consequence, according to the IPCC, beats me! But then, I’m not a global warming alarmist and, to me, the IPCC’s hypothesis is illogical!

  19. Merv – can you site a specific Ch, or page(s) or diagram for your remarks re AR 4 ? I would like to read this myself. Thanks !

  20. Mervyn says: August 31, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    ….. it is only the 3% of this CO2 from human activity that is of concern…

    Amazing concept when you think of it:

    That the biosphere was perfectly and intricately balanced for millenia in terms of CO2 production and absorption, apparently never varying from those output levels as it would not have been able to take up a few percent increase in output, as is evidenced by the doctrine that the 3% that mankind is recently adding to the mix has tipped the whole thing out of kilter.

  21. There’s a reason why all life forms use carbonic anhydrase to accelerate the hydration/dehydration of CO2/carbonic acid: it is a lot slower than a diffusion-controlled reaction.

  22. upon partial pressures of CO2 from several meters below the ocean surface

    Is this actually true. You mean to tell me that they have been measuring CO² exchange well below the interface? That is stupid, really stupid.

  23. What is meant by the red arrow labelled ”Fuel CO2”. I presume red for danger but as far as the ocean/algal growth/animals are concerned it is just CO2. No difference, No danger.

  24. Oh, and radiocarbon dating where sample has at some point resided near warm oceans need careful error analysis.

    Case in point, the eruption of Thera.

  25. Maybe off topic ,but…Is night air different…?
    Somewhere long ago i read that during the day carbonic acid gas is beaten down to the ground or surface by the sun.I was just wondering if that is true,might that not be another variable that is not taken into account?I also think that other gases and elements are changed(oxidation and other processes)by the sun and other elements.That is why they do experiments in the lab,isn’t it?I’m curious because i don’t hear much about those variables.
    I’m commenting about this because the title/article is about errors in the calculations and if you ask me there seems to be alot.
    Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.

  26. mbur:

    re your post at September 1, 2013 at 5:57 am, you say

    I’m commenting about this because the title/article is about errors in the calculations and if you ask me there seems to be alot.

    Almost nothing is known and understood about the carbon cycle.
    And the Bern Model of the carbon cycle (used by the IPCC) is certainly wrong.

    If you want an introduction to various views on the carbon cycle then I commend that you read the long thread below the recent WUWT ‘Salby’ article at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/

    I hope this is helpful.

    Richard

  27. I luv’ed dat purty picture/graphic labeled Ocean Carbon Uptake. It was obviously created by a highly partisan proponent of CAGW who wanted to portray, front n’ center, the “human-caused” factor.

    Who else would have put that big “red” arrow on it with the label of “(fossil) fuel CO2 uptake” …. when in fact, if anything, it should have been “clouds” with precipitation falling

    Anyway, after reading the seeded commentary and all the posts, it is of my opinion that the comment posted by …. Robert JM – August 31, 2013 at 4:25 pm …. says it all … or all that was needed to be said. To wit:

    “The AIRS data clearly shows high precipitation areas have lower atmospheric CO2 than Low precipitation areas. Rain absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and moves it into the oceans. Gas exchange is minor at the ocean surface in comparison the to (sic) huge surface area of water droplets in precipitation systems. It would also explain the CO2 rich surface layer.”

    The only known factual quantity associated with the above discussion is the CO2 ppm as recorded at Mona Loa, Hawaii. Everything else is estimations, speculations or obfuscations.

    The other obvious fact is that the ocean water is in control of the bi-yearly cycling and the current overall average increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm. Which gives cause as to why atmospheric CO2 ppm increases/decreases always lags behind near surface temperature increases/decreases.

  28. RoHa says:
    August 31, 2013 at 11:04 pm
    “But does this make us any less doomed?”

    Every time the rug is pulled out from under the feet of the IPCC, it becomes more difficult for them to claim they can predict the future.
    So this is just part of the ongoing collapse of government propaganda in general; in this case affecting the government’s science propaganda.

  29. This paper in the introduction says:

    34 [2] Early interest in the subject of air-water gas transfer
    35 arose from the need to understand the aeration of anoxic
    36 waters, and has continued due to the need to track dissolved
    37 pollutants, greenhouse gases, and other geochemical com-
    38 pounds. A large amount of literature exists on the subject,
    39 including recent reviews [Banerjee and MacIntyre , 2004].
    40 In spite of this body of work, the mechanisms that drive the
    41 process remain poorly understood and consequently pre-
    42 dictions have large uncertainty. For example, widely used
    43 predictive models of the gas transfer process commonly
    44 differ by factors of three or more
    , and contain poorly
    45 understood non-linearities [Banerjee and MacIntyre ,
    46 2004]. This translates to uncertainties of at least 300% in
    47 recent attempts to calculate a net oceanic CO2 uptake
    48 [Donelan et al. , 2002; Takahashi et al. , 2002]. Such
    49 uncertainty is due to the highly variable nature of correlat-
    50 ing factors, e.g., wind, waves, surfactants, and thermal
    51 convection or stratification.

    which indicates that commonly used correlations ( aka parameterizations ) can differ by factors of three or more. [ my em ]

    NB that the modeling approach used in the paper focuses on the fluid motions at the gas-liquid interface, not the difference in the concentration between the gas and liquid. A very much improved approach, in my opinion, as shown by the several successful applications of the approach. These applications will be among the hits that Google Scholar will find.

    Given that the objectives of many GCM calculations are to determine the effects of changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and that the natural flows of CO2 are enormous compared with the effects of human activities, I suspect that the GCM calculations are done with specified values of atmospheric concentrations. That is, small errors in modeling of the natural flows, and these are solely very rough estimates, could annihilate the requirement that the concentration be in agreement with the actual, or hypothesized, values.

  30. There is a reason why a properly properly designed aquarium has filters that turn the water over a minimum of three times an hour with five being much better. Its called the boundary layer. Any serious aquarist knows this. I am strongly suspecting that the reported estimates of CO2 from organic sources are deliberately accounting for only a fraction of what actually exists. Never underestimate the power of fungi!

  31. The hard-to-measure complications discussed here are one of the reasons that computing the AGW contribution to temperature change is “a wicked problem,” as Judith Curry called it.

  32. Earth’s atmosphere is entirely biological (except Argon). Nitrogen from the biological Nitrogen cycle, Oxygen and CO2 from respiration/photosynthesis. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pool, it is part of a flowing system. Biological carbon fluxes are 30 times larger than “anthropogenic”.
    The CO2 rapidly is “consumed” by photosynthesis, as shown by the obvious annual oscillation in the measured ppm levels. Calling the pre-industrial natural fluxes 100 percent, then fossil fuel addtions have increased since 1800. In 1800 the CO2 in ppm terms was 300, all natural. The carbon cycle input (and output) then increase to 101 percent around 1900, then reach 102 percent around 1950, and finally 103 percent in 2000.
    Eventually, “anthropogenic” CO2 will cause the input to reach 104 percent, with the output adapting to the higher levels fairly quickly, within 5 to 10 years. Since the atmospheric CO2 due to anthropogenic addition is only 3 percent, then the current composition of 400 ppm can only be 3 percent anthropogenic, ie .03 times 400 is 12 ppm. And 386 ppm is natural.
    The remaining 86 ppm above 300 from 1800 is natural by default. There are other sources (isotopes, etc) that show that the change from 300 to 400 ppm is 5/6 natural and 1/6 anthropogenic.
    Peter Dietze said this in 1996

    http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

    Peilke Sr has a good paper on the problems with boundry layers

    http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

  33. george e. smith says:
    August 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    “CO2 preferentially diffuses to deeper colder water, rather than shallower warmer water, so a continuous CO2 pumping process occurs, depleting the surface waters in CO2… ”

    George – this beautiful picture is my education for the week! The obvious has a way of hiding in plain sight. Solubility gradient as an inexorable pump. This conjures up a picture of CO2 plunging to the depths pulling more CO2 out of the atmosphere to follow it, and then being released when this water wells back up to the surface somewhere else to be heated (and pumped back into the atmosphere. There is now no doubt in my mind that biological activity, as large a phenomenon as it is at and near the surface, is much overwhelmed by the dissolution and evolution of CO2 with spatial variations in sea water temperatures. I, too, would like to see a real data profile of CO2 from the sea surface both ways, up and down. When the warm surface evaporates and rises up to form cooler clouds, the cool water droplets suck in CO2, pumping it out of the atmosphere according to Henry’s Law until if falls back as cool rain to the surface – here, the CO2, already dissolved in the water, easily joins the ocean solution – another “feedback” not accounted for.

    Question, once the CO2 is dissolved in water, does it lose its so-called “heat trapping” ability – most of it ceases to be molecular CO2.

  34. On August 31, 2013 at 3:34 pm, richardscourtney writes:

    “For many years and in many places I have been saying that biological activity in the ocean surface layer means Henry’s Law is not applicable for calculation of air/ocean CO2 exchange.”

    At the risk of being overly pedantic, Henry’s Law (properly exercised) is definitely applicable in influencing the interchange of CO2 across gas-liquid interfaces such as (1) the seawater – air interface, (2) the rain droplet – air interface, or (3) seawater – wave entrained air bubble interfaces. . . at least as long a the concentration of biological matter has a low surface areal fraction (i.e., it’s not a dominant feature of the true surface). For each of the interfaces mentioned above, Henry’s Law sets the equilibrium gas concentration at the liquid side of the interface, and boundary layer mass transport relationships (often correlated to dimensionless parameters such as the Sherwood and Schmidt numbers) govern kinetics across the interface. So in my opinion Henry’s Law is definitely not irrelevant.

    Having written this, factors such as the advection of CO2 via rain, injection from wave froth, or near surface biological activity may have a contributing (even dominating) influence on CO2 uptake or release. . .

    But as a mere metallurgist/materials engineer, I’m not sufficiently educated to determine which mechanism(s) actually control the outcome. . . but in my field the final outcome often involves a competition among mechanisms. As much as CAGW modelers may not like it, in my experience Mother Nature doesn’t make things simple!

    Dan

  35. There is a lot of biological activity in the atmosphere as well. The closer to the surface the more biology.

  36. DanMet’al:

    For purpose of clarity, I write to sat that I agree all you say in your post at September 1, 2013 at 1:46 pm.

    However, and importantly, none of that alters my view that biological activity in the ocean surface layer means Henry’s Law is not applicable for calculation of air/ocean CO2 exchange. Indeed, it goes some way to explaining it.

    Richard

  37. Would someone with actual access to this paper confirm or refute that “Compiling vertical profiles of pCO2, Temperature and dissolved oxygen in the upper 5-8 meters of the ocean from different biogeographical areas” means actual measurements were used?

    Tku.

  38. richardscourtney:

    I acknowledge that your perspective about the role of biological activity may be correct. But given that Henry’s Law dictates the local (infinitely thin) boundary condition between atmosphere and ocean/water (rain/froth); please educate me as to how one could even formulate a model for CO2 trasnfer without considering the constraint the law imposes upon the results of calculation. [Note: if you distrust Henry's Law because the associated solution thermodynamics is incomplete (because of interaction effects, experimental errors etc.) as typically used or discussed in this thread, I whole-heartedly agree].

    But I ask only that you tell me how/why you dismiss Henry’s Law as relevant . . . is it because you don’t trust chemical thermodynamics or something else? I’m just trying to learn/understand.

    Thanks in advance.

    Dan

  39. Kip Hansen says:
    September 1, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    I went to the paper link. . . the paper has been approved but is currently being edited and has not be typeset. I attempted to get the paper digitally from a university library where I have privileges (the paper was not available). . . If you figure out how to get it, please post.

    Dan

  40. DanMet’al:

    re your question to me at September 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm.

    Obviously, I have not been clear. Sorry. I will try to do better here.

    I do not say I “dismiss Henry’s Law as relevant”.

    I say, and have here said repeatedly, Henry’s Law is not applicable for calculation of air/ocean CO2 exchange.
    This is because the effects of biota add and subtract CO2 from the air and ocean they contact. They also alter pH in ways which are not overcome by the carbonate buffer. None of these effects are quantifiable at present. And the ocean surface layer is rich in microorganisms.

    Please note that Henry’s Law pertains to the equilibrium state and the presence of biota will change the equilibrium. However, if there were sufficient information to construct a mechanistic model of the air/ocean CO2 exchange then that model would need to include Henry’s Law. Unfortunately, the effects of biota are not known so cannot be modeled.

    For example, effects of varying pH will be enormous. An unmeasurably small change of average ocean pH by 0.1 would induce a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration greater than the 280 to 400 ppmv said to have happened since the industrial revolution.

    Despite this, some people do use Henry’s Law to calculate air/ocean CO2 exchange and this naive calculation is providing indications which must be erroneous but nobody can know how much they are in error.

    Richard

  41. “””””……The authors find a “strong” CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry’s Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers. The paper finds higher levels of CO2 in the boundary layer than in the 5 meter deep global datasets, which would suggest that either the oceans are less of a sink for CO2 or a larger source of CO2 to the atmosphere than previously assumed……””””””

    “”””””……Did I detect that the authors do not state that they actually MEASURED the CO2 in these water layers, but inferred them from some data about biological entities ?……””””””

    “”””””……So, it seems your rant about not using measurements is mistaken because the entire analysis is based on measurements. ……..””””””

    Now I must have read their words incorrectly; I thought they had based their analysis on “Global Data Sets”.

    If I wanted to analyse the ocean CO2 uptake, I would find a nice undisturbed oceanic location without significant tidal or current disturbances, or ships passing through, and I would carefully measure CO2 concentrations simultaneously at a variety of water depths from the very top surface micron, or less, to whatever depth was of interest. They evidently thought five metres was a useful depth.

    I would do that sort of measurement regimen at a number of different such quiet locations.

    I would have no interest whatsoever in ANY global data sets collected by other parties, I would MAKE MY OWN MEASUREMENTS.

    No, I didn’t read where they said they did make their own measurements; that accounts for why I asked the question.

    And Richard, if that is your idea of a rant, perhaps you need to take some yoga classes.

  42. george e. smith:

    re your post at September 1, 2013 at 3:39 pm.

    You asked if the authors used measurements.

    I quoted both the article and the abstract of the paper which both say they did.

    Now you say you are upset because they did not provide their own measurements to replicate the global temperature data sets. You do get upset for strange reasons.

    You claim you would have replicated the global temperature data sets. Why?
    There would be no purpose in compiling the global temperature data sets if nobody was going to use them. And it would take years to do the replication. Such a replication would have value both to validate the global temperature data sets and to assess if the data had changed with time.

    But that replication would be a different study for a different purpose than the paper under discussion.

    Richard

  43. richardscourtney says:
    September 1, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    I truly appreciate your feedback. . . and I understand your response. Indeed, there is much that is not known regarding the biota effect and (too many) other ill-understood phenomena. From a life-time in engineering, I fully respect how difficult it is to unravel the complexity of the “real world”. . . particularly when highly credible data (and yes models) are lacking.

    From my point of view, models are only a means of confirming (making sense of) what the data say. . . and thereby building/expanding comprehension. . . and expansion toward understanding even more complicated physical situations!

    Regards . . . cheerrs

    Dan

  44. “””””””…….“”””””……Did I detect that the authors do not state that they actually MEASURED the CO2 in these water layers, but inferred them from some data about biological entities ?……””””””…….””””””

    “””””””…….richardscourtney says:

    September 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    george e. smith:

    re your post at September 1, 2013 at 3:39 pm.

    You asked if the authors used measurements…….””””””

    No Richard, I asked no such question. I asserted that the authors did not say that THEY made any measurements; that they simply analysed somebody else’s global data sets.

    And it appears from the comments of others who have read what they did, that they aren’t too sure what they were analyzing

    As for trying to infer the carbon take up processes in ocean water, I can think of nothing more useless, than trying to do so from global data sets.

    That is the entire point of the stupid, so called global energy budget that Kevin Trenberth touts.

    Thermal processes are entirely dependent on the simultaneous conditions, Temperature etc of different media in direct thermal contact. Trying to infer such processes such as “heat flow” rates from global averaged data sets, is total nonsense.

    The same is true for trying to study CO2 propagation in the ocean/atmosphere boundary region. Global average data is totally useless.

    “””””……Now you say you are upset because they did not provide their own measurements to replicate the global temperature data sets. You do get upset for strange reasons…….”””””

    Once again Richard, I said no such thing. Never said I was “upset” for any reason, nor upset for no reason at all. Merely thought their process was completely meaningless.

    I never said anything about them replicating global data sets from their own measurements, or from anything else either. The global data sets are of no utility whatsoever, since global point to point differences in those data sets, cannot be used to deduce point to point CO2 propagation in any local ocean stratification, from surface interface so some (5 metre) depth.

    If I want to know what the atmospheric CO2 abundance profile is in the air over my house during some quiet, no wind static period; I would make simultaneous measurements at altitudes of interest, above my house, and no global data set of any kind of CO2 data would be of any use, in trying to understand the apparent CO2 dynamics (if any) in the air over my house.

    An average is simply a number; it isn’t measurable for anything, anywhere by anybody, so it can’t be used for any purpose but to compare with other no information average numbers.

    But it can be calculated by definition for any set of numbers; even when such a set of numbers contains no mutually related pairs of numbers. The mathematical definition of average, assumes no relationship between numbers of the set.

  45. Dan Met’al — Thank you for the attempt. IMHO it is not worthwhile to discuss this paper from the abstract without even the barest idea of what the authors have done or found.

    If you could follow up and let us know when it is finally posted to the journal site, I would appreciate it.

  46. Question for the smart guys pushing the idea that CO2 naturally moves to deeper levels where the temps are colder and the ocean would then have a higher CO2 carrying capacity:

    Why would the deep cold ocean layers not be CO2 saturated from the last glacial?

  47. This is getting very disturbing and has gone far beyond being a pet peeve of mine these days.

    Lawrence Todd @ August 31, 2013 at 4:00 pm wrote the following:

    “I see some complaints about this paper for using existing data sets to infer a theory. However, i respect any authors who but out a theory and recommend that experimental data be gathered to prove/disprove it.”

    Where or when did the discussion of science lose the ability to differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory? Why do so many people call anything being postulated or discussed a “theory” when quite often the subject matter barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

    This is one of the issues we are dealing with regarding AGW/CAGW/whatever they call it this week, People continually refer to it as a theory when it is not a theory, it hasn’t qualified as one and continually calling it one will not make it so. Though I do suspect the proponents hope that doing so will “convince” the masses that it has passed the requirements to transcend from hypothesis to theory.

  48. “Question, once the CO2 is dissolved in water, does it lose its so-called “heat trapping” ability – most of it ceases to be molecular CO2.”

    Good question, but most “dissolved” CO2 actually remains molecular. CO2 just loves to swim.

  49. “Why would the deep cold ocean layers not be CO2 saturated from the last glacial?”

    Because it is not static. The ocean is in motion. Cold bottom water upwelling today and outgassing CO2 sank and sucked that CO2 from the atmosphere thousands of miles away and hundreds of years ago.

  50. September 1, 2013 at 1:46 pm DanMet’al says: “….. on CO2 uptake or release. . . ….. to determine which mechanism(s) actually control the outcome. .”

    And Sam C says, the actual and only control mechanisms are Henry’s Law and the Vernal (March) & Autumnal (September) equinoxes. All of the lesser mechanisms involved are actually irrelevant.

    And my reasons for stating the above are, to wit:

    1. The official atmospheric CO2 ppm number is measured at Mona Loa, Hawaii, Northern Hemisphere. That same number applies to the atmosphere in the Southern Hemisphere.

    2. 70.8% of the earth’s surface is covered by water. The surface area of the water in the Southern Hemisphere is approximately 2.6 times greater than in the Northern Hemisphere. Thus the Southern Hemisphere ocean is by far the dominant factor.

    3. Henry’s Law functions relative to the temperature of the two (2) mediums (air & water) and the partial pressure of the CO2 gas between the two mediums.

    4. As the surface waters of the ocean warms up it will outgas CO2. As the surface waters of the ocean cools down it will ingas CO2.

    5. The Vernal equinox occurs on March 20th and the Autumnal equinox occurs on September 22nd. Those dates mark the season change from winter to summer or summer to winter in their respective hemispheres. It also marks the time when the Sun is no longer directly overhead in the respective hemisphere.

    6. The vertical position of the Sun directly affects the average near-surface air temperature … and the near-surface air temperature directly affects the water temperature. But due to the volume and mass density of the water it requires like 60+- days before the water temperature begins to increase/decrease and CO2 begins to outgas/ingas. Thus, CO2 ppm lags behind near-surface temperatures. See data below.

    NOAA’s 2012 Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
    Source link: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    Year ——– date —— avg ppm ————— trend — # days
    2012 1 2012.042 393.12 393.12 392.83 30
    2012 2 2012.125 393.60 393.60 392.71 27
    2012 3 2012.208 394.45 394.45 392.95 31
    2012 4 2012.292 396.18 396.18 393.51 30
    2012 5 2012.375 396.78 396.78 393.56 31
    …….. (southern ocean have been cooling for 60+- days) …
    2012 6 2012.458 395.83 395.83 393.52 28
    2012 7 2012.542 394.30 394.30 393.79 29
    2012 8 2012.625 392.41 392.41 394.10 31
    2012 9 2012.708 391.06 391.06 394.37 29
    2012 10 2012.792 391.01 391.01 394.32 30
    …….. (southern ocean have been warming for 60+- days) …
    2012 11 2012.875 392.81 392.81 395.00 29
    2012 12 2012.958 394.28 394.28 395.15 30

    And like they say, a picture is worth a 1,000 words, to wit:

    Keeling Curve graph with included equinox lines
    Source link: http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

    After 56 years the bi-yearly cycle is still repeating itself without any help or hindrance from humans or their activities.

    Note: the gradual yearly increase in CO2 ppm is the result of the overall yearly increase of the ocean water temperature. (recovery from Little Ice Age temperatures)

  51. Samuel C Cogar:

    re your post at September 2, 2013 at 7:27 am

    I think you will want to read the long discussion in the recent ‘Salby’ thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/

    Your post supports Bart’s view but opposes Ferdinand’s view as they are clearly argued in that thread.

    As a taster for you, I mention that
    1.
    Bart argues the entire atmospheric CO2 rise is caused by temperature change.
    2.
    Ferdinand agrees the short-term fluctuations are temperature driven but says Henry’s Law indicates the long-term rise (which you comment) cannot be mostly temperature driven so – he claims – is induced by the anthropogenic emission.
    3.
    I don’t know what causes the long-term rise in part or in whole, but it seems to be adjustment to changed equilibrium of the carbon cycle which may be a result of temperature rise from the LIA, or the anthropogenic emission, or etc.

    Richard

  52. richardscourtney,

    ref your post time stamped September 2, 2013 at 7:57 am

    I will read your cited discussion after I compose this post.

    From what you stated in comments 1. and 2., I agree with Bart ….. and not Ferdinand, …. simply because Henry’s Law could care less about short term or long term temperature rises or the source of the CO2 . It only cares about a change in temperature of either medium and/or the quantity of CO2 (vapor pressure) in either medium.

    Henry’s Law simply states that: “at constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid”.

    And that gas will migrate between the mediums if said equilibrium ….. gets outta whack.

    Richard, if you want to see the effect that temperature has on the yearly or decadal “AVERAGE” CO2 ppm, ….. then look at this Keeling Curve graph: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/600px_mlo_record.jpg

    If you want to see the effect that temperature has on the monthly or yearly “AVERAGE” CO2 ppm, ….. then look at NOAA’s complete Mona Loa CO2 ppm data at this link: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    If you want to see the effect that temperature has on the daily or weekly “AVERAGE” CO2 ppm, ….. then look at this graph: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png

    And Richard, the Keeling Curve graph is just a reduced composite graph created via the past 54 years worth of similar graphs as the above daily/weekly graph.

  53. Samuel C Cogar:

    re your post at September 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm.

    I suggested you read the thread because I thought it would interest you. I am very familiar with the Keeling curve.

    If you don’t want to read the thread but do want to know my views on the subject then I suggest reading one of our 2005 papers; i.e.
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Nothing has changed my view since then.

    Richard

  54. DCA:

    At September 2, 2013 at 11:29 am you ask

    Does this in any way related to Salby’s work?

    Yes, it supports his view that biology dominates the carbon cycle.

    Also, please note that Salby’s work supports ours.
    His investigation of soil moisture effects is novel but – other than that – his carbon cycle work repeats our work reported in the paper I cited to Samuel C Cogar; i.e.
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Hence, I suggested to Samuel

    I think you will want to read the long discussion in the recent ‘Salby’ thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/

    I think you may also want to read the various views argued in that thread.

    Richard

  55. Richard Scourtney,

    re your post of: September 2, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    “I suggested you read the thread because I thought it would interest you. I am very familiar with the Keeling curve.”

    Richard, I read part of that thread and did find lots of ….. might interesting thingys. HA, I would have loved to have gotten into that conversation. Anyway, there were 3 or 4 posters that displayed lots of common sense, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions along with their knowledge of the Physical Sciences. But for the most part it was the same ole, same ole … CAGW proponent verses the “skeptic” and/or “denialist” tit-for-tat arguments.

    Richard, there are thousands of people who are very familiar with the Keeling Curve because they have read about it and have seen dozens of pictures of it. But the big question is, do they actually know what they are looking at when they look at a KC graph? And the answer is, …. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

    And me thinks you are one of those persons, Richard, given this comment of yours, to wit:

    richardscourtney says: August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am – “The important question is;
    Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?”

    Richard, the natural sequestration processes DO absorb all natural and anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in each year …. and the proof is explicitly defined on the KC graph via the bi-yearly 5 to 6 ppm decrease in atmospheric CO2.

    If said sequestration was NOT occurring then the KC graph would NOT be a “saw tooth” grid plot …… but would be a “wavy line” with a more pronounced vertical upswing with the CO2 now being in the 500 to 800+ range. Just draw a line across the top of the KC “saw tooth” to “see” what that wavy line would look like.

    Anyway, Richard, I stopped reading after your post of – August 13, 2013 at 5:47 am. Me thinks I was discouraged by your actions when you failed to comment on some quoted text that was posted 2 hours prior to your aforesaid. To wit:

    The following was exerted from: Allan MacRae says: August 13, 2013 at 3:56 am — to wit:

    “NASA now: The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood.”

    Richard, do you see anything wrong with that NASA statement?

    Well I sure as ell do. It is blatantly FALSE, …. and in fact, … directly contrary to the Refrigerator Law (my sic), …. or if you prefer, ….. the Biological Law of Refrigeration and Freezing. Another “point” that you apparently don’t see …. when you see a Keeling Curve graph.

    “DUH”, the bi-yearly increase in CO2 during the Northern Hemisphere’s fall and winter months is NOT, and I repeat, is NOT the result of 7+- months of rotting and decaying of plant biomass.

    Richard, bout everyone owns a refrigerator and/or freezer …. and NOT just for keeping their beer cold or making ice cubes for their mixed drinks. People own those things to PREVENT and/or RETARD the rotting and/or decaying of their stored animal and plant biomass. Public Health Laws even stipulate the use of those appliances.

    Anyway, Richard, the majority of bacteria, yeasts, molds and mildews really don’t to do much “work” when the biomass is not “moist” ….. or when the temperature is below 60F. And the majority of all of them pretty much refuse to do any work at all if the temperature falls below 43F ….. which is exactly why that is the recommended temperature “setting” for refrigerators. And if frozen, they are incapacitated for the duration.

    And Richard, when the “warm” temperatures return in the Spring time, after the Vernal equinox, those little fellows get to “working” double-time-and-a-half and produce CO2 like it’s going out of style.

    If the biomass rotted and decayed during the fall and winter ….. then no one would have to do any “spring cleanup” of the dead biomass on their yard, garden, etc.

    And Richard, I can cite you 15 or 16 other “things” that I absolutely believe proves that the CAGW claims are all “junk science” piffle n’ tripe..

  56. Robert JM says:

    August 31, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    “The AIRS data clearly shows high precipitation areas have lower atmospheric CO2 than Low precipitation areas.
    Rain absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and moves it into the oceans. Gas exchange is minor at the ocean surface in comparison the to huge surface area of water droplets in precipitation systems.
    It would also explain the CO2 rich surface layer.”

    Precisely, and the higher the pCO2 is in the atmosphere the more that will dissolve into precipitation! Basic chemistry does not seem to register with the Warmists. We are being told that a drop in pH of 0.1 units is already destroying plankton in the CaCO3 supersaturated oceans yet fresh water gastropods that build their shells in water with a pH as low as 6 are all smiles.

  57. Samuel C Cogar:

    I am replying to your offensive and inaccurate post at September 3, 2013 at 11:03 am.

    I did reply to the post from Allan.

    I am very familiar with the Keeling curve and several other curves of CO2 measurements from elsewhere (although they are shorter).

    You are plain wrong when you say

    Richard, the natural sequestration processes DO absorb all natural and anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in each year …. and the proof is explicitly defined on the KC graph via the bi-yearly 5 to 6 ppm decrease in atmospheric CO2.

    The atmospheric CO2 concentration is INCREASING – not decreasing – year on year.

    I could go on, but I see no reason to waste my time. I suggest you go talk to Richard Guy in his thread where he is claiming the Earth is expanding. It seems the two of you would get on well.

    Richard

  58. Richard Scourtney,

    re your post of: September 3, 2013 at 11:29 am – “I am replying to your offensive and inaccurate post ”

    Richard, ….. “Hell hath no fury like a female that’s been proven wrong”.

    And Richard, there was nothing in my posts that I am aware of that was inaccurate.

    But on the contrary, I’ll cut-you-some-slack to lessen the insult to your injury, … by merilly stating that it appears to me that the “inaccuracy“ you speak of …. was/is directly related to your short term memory.

    Richard, your post of August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am SPECIFICALLY stated, to wit:

    “Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all —– emissions of CO2 in EACH YEAR …”

    So, Richard Scourtney, please tell me, why did you say I was “plain wrong” and then post this statement as your proof of my wrongful commentary, to wit:

    “The atmospheric CO2 concentration is INCREASING – not decreasing – year on year”.

    So Richard, tell us, …. what’s your problem, …. was it:

    1. You don’t comprehend the difference between: “each year” verses “year on year”.
    2. Your short term memory failed you and you didn’t recall previously stating “each year”.
    3. You needed a CYA to justify your miseducation so you accused me of being offensive, inaccurate & plain wrong.

    And ps, Richard, the ocean waters have been gradually “warming up” ever since the early 1800’s …… and the “steady n’ consistent” yearly increase of 1 to 2 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is the direct result of said “warm up” as per mandated by Henry’s Law.

    Richard, look at this copy of the Keeling Curve graph … http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif … so that you can “see” what you haven’t been seeing previously.

    Richard, you should be able to plainly “see” that there are two (2) processes at work; the gradual “warming” of the oceans (2 ppm CO2 increase) ….. and the bi-yearly or seasonal warming and cooling of the ocean surface water (6 ppm CO2 increase/decrease) .

    Here ya go, Richard, chew on this awhile and lets see what you spit out, to wit:

    I previously compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:

    World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
    decade end — # people —— % increase __ CO2 ppm – % increase — avg ppm increase/year
    1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm
    1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 18.9% ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% (avg 1 ppm/year)
    1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 22.0% ____ 320 ppm – 3.1% (avg 1 ppm/year)
    1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 20.2% ____ 328 ppm – 2.5% (avg .8 ppm/year)
    1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 18.5% ____ 342 ppm – 4.3% (avg 1.2 ppm/year)
    1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 15.2% ____ 357 ppm – 4.4% (avg 1.5 ppm/year)
    2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 12.6% ____ 372 ppm – 4.2% (avg 1.5 ppm/year)
    2009 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 387 ppm – 4.0% (avg 1.5 ppm/year)
    2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 13.8% ____ 391 ppm – 4.8% (avg 1.6 ppm/year)

    Based on the above statistics, to wit:
    Fact #1 – In 70 years – population increased 198% – CO2 increased 29% – Heat Islands increased est. 300/400%

    Fact #2 – Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.

    Fact #3 – calculated Global Average Temperatures have been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.

    My Conclusions:

    Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:

    • Increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases.
    • Increases in Average Global Temperature and world population increases.
    • Increases in Average Global Temperature and Heat Islands construction increases.
    • Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.

    But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.

  59. Samuel C Cogar:

    I do not understand why you think insults, misrepresentation, and blather are not offensive.

    In your post at September 4, 2013 at 3:37 am you say I am “female”.
    Richard is not a female name.

    Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing as measured at all measurement sites.
    You have NOT “proved [me] wrong” about that: you cannot because it is true.

    You misquote me by claiming I wrote
    “Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all —– emissions of CO2 in EACH YEAR …”
    then discuss only the anthropogenic emissions.

    But I actually wrote:

    “The important question is;
    Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?

    The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (~1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to ~3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (~6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with ~150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and ~6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = ~2% of all emissions accumulate.

    As I said, the important question is why that ~2% of all emissions accumulates in the air when THE DYNAMICS OF THE CARBON INDICATE THE PROCESSES CAN SEQUESTER ALL THE EMISSIONS.

    I refuse to engage with you any more because – as is often said –
    “Don’t wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig likes it.”

    Richard

  60. (quoting RS) “In your post at September 4, 2013 at 3:37 am you say I am “female”.

    Richard, I said no such thing. I was comparing your actions to that of an irate female.

    (quoting RS) “Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing as measured at all measurement sites.
    You have NOT “proved [me] wrong” about that: you cannot because it is true.”

    I have NEVER implied, suggested, inferred or stated that you were wrong concerning the MEASURED yearly atmospheric CO2 increase of 1 to 2 ppm. But I did emphatically state that you were WRONG about THE SOURCE of that increase. And you haven’t proven otherwise because you can’t..

    (quoting RS) “You misquote me by claiming I wrote …. “Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all —– emissions of CO2 in EACH YEAR …” ….. then discuss only the anthropogenic emissions.

    Richard, that response was delusional on your part. Do you actually think I should have quoted both of your posts in their entirety just to point out your “screw-up” by stating “EACH YEAR” in the first post and “YEAR ON YEAR” in your 2nd post? And then, Richard, you really went “bonkers” when you accused me of discussing ….. “only the anthropogenic emissions”. Just why in hell would I do such a dastardly thing ….. given the FACT that it is impossible for anyone to measure or acturately calculate the quantity of anthropogenic emissions that exist in the atmosphere at any given time. GEEEZUS, there is no accurate measurements of anthropogenic emissions from their sources, let alone after they enter the atmosphers.

    (quoting RS) As I said, the important question is why that ~2% of all emissions accumulates in the air …..

    GETTA CLUE, ….. Richard, …… in actuality, that “~2%” figure you stated is technically NOT an accumulation ….. simply because “accumulations” are residual quantities that remain the same or continue to increase. TECHNICALLY, your “~2%” figure is the “yearly average” resultant “sum” total of atmospheric CO2 due to the action of Henry’s Law and the gradual “warming” of the ocean waters.

    Richard, if the ocean water starts gradually “cooling” down again ….. then the “yearly average” resultant “sum” total of atmospheric CO2 will start decreasing …… and your silly accumulations will become anti-accumulations as they are absorbed into the water.

    Richard, all real scienists argree that, …. associations, consensusations, correlations, estimations, guesstimations, insinuations, obfuscations, opinionations, percentageations, projectionations and/or tripe n’ piffle …… are not scientifically factual entities …………… no matter how much you or anyone else wants to believe that they are.

    “And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,
    One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.”
    Alexander Pope

    “Knowing the extent of our ignorance is knowledge.
    Claiming our ignorance is knowledge is religion.”

  61. Richard Scourtney,

    Don’t be forgetting about my Refrigerator Law when writing your next paper for peer approval.

    Those dudes at Climate Central should be mighty interested in what you have to say given they are now saying this, to wit:

    “The small annual zigzag visible on the (Kelling) curve is timed with the seasons. Carbon dioxide levels drop during the northern hemisphere spring and summer, when plants are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow. In the fall and winter, plants and leaves die off and decay, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere and causing a small spike.”

    http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve

    Yours truly,
    The ranting and delusional denialist,

    Sam C

Comments are closed.