Readers please note the story I ran earlier: NOAA: “the atmosphere’s self-cleaning capacity is rather stable”
This story talks about the ability of hydroxyl radicals in the free atmosphere to break down pollutants, and how there seems to be a stability in the levels globally, something understood for the first time. All good news.
Now read what this New York Times reporter, Assistant Business Editor Justin Gillis, bemoans in his story here:
A Steady Dose of Atmospheric Detergent
He writes:
Unfortunately, the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is not one of those broken down by the hydroxyl radical.
Zounds!
Mr. Gillis, let’s say such a thing magically did occur naturally, or someone creates a synthetic catalyst that performs the job and releases enough of it into the atmosphere in some geoengineering scheme to start dissipating CO2 in the atmosphere.
- What would happen if we rid the Earth of CO2 ?
- Or more technically, what would happen if this process scavenged CO2 down to 150 parts per million (or lower) globally?
If you can answer these questions, you might then understand why I am giving your statement the high praise of this regular feature.
This WUWT post on CO2 has a clue for you. I offer it as a path to enlightenment.
While you are at it, you might also like to address this story you did on sea level rise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html
Gillis writes:
As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.
And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.
This is the graph of satellite measured sea level rise from the University of Colorado:
Note the rate of 3.1 millimeters per year.
Note this simple calculation:
2100 – 2011 = 89 years left to the end of the century
89 x 3.1mm = 275.9 mm call it 276mm
276 mm = .906 feet conversion done here
.906 feet is over 3 times less than 3 feet, and over 6 times less than 6 feet
Even if the rate of sea level rise accelerated (as some claim it will) and doubled, we still would not reach 3 feet. It would have to more than triple the current rate.
Many projections by various models predict the rise of sea level:
Note the trend of the observations line from 1950 to 2000, if you follow the linear trend, it will end up somewhere between 20 and 30 cm by the year 2100. The graph above is from Wikipedia’s “global warming art” which for some reason doesn’t show the observations back that far.
Let’s call it 30 centimeters. So 30 cm converted to feet is:
30 centimeters = 0.984251969 feet
Still far shy of 3 feet.
I hope this clears things up for you. If not, there’s much more here.
Articles like this always make me wonder. Do people like Mr. Gillis know we use his serious articles for our amusement? Obviously, some do, such a Craven. But in general, I’m forced to wonder. It doesn’t seem to slow their idiocy one bit. Can it be that they don’t know thousands of people today will wander by WUWT and watch us have fun at Mr. Gillis’ expense?
“….906 feet is over 3 times less than 3 feet, and over 6 times less than 6 feet…”
I understand what you are saying, but how can something be 600 percent less then something else? Once it hits 100 percent less it’s not there any longer.
I’ll drink to that. reaches down picks up bottle of Stop and Shop lemon-lime flavored seltzer water and takes a swig of H2CO3.
Someone screaming fire in a a crowded theater gets my attention. However upon clearing the theater I find the person screaming the alarm missing– I may become curious. If I peek back in the theater and find the alarmist sitting in MY seat, taking a big swig of MY Coke, followed by munching on a hand full of MY popcorn while generally getting comfy before watching the movie. My first reaction will be WTF – followed by an immediate distrust of both the reality of a fire and the motives of the alarmist.
The NYT, Hansen and the rest of our intellectual betters scream the world is on fire. So why haven’t the New York Times and James Hanson moved their offices from New York City? It was supposed to be under water by now. Why haven’t the environmental groups moved out of the soon to be flooded Washington DC or EPA and Congress for that matter. And what is with Gore and his penchant for seaside property?
Our government just spent a trillion dollars on the stimulus–yet spent nothing to build sea walls, flood control devices, mobilization efforts to relocate our coastal populations, or new reservoirs to help us withstand the droughts and other climate devastation. With thirty years of doom warning where were those shovel ready climate protection projects?
Those screaming the world is on fire are taking our jobs, our tax dollars and our future while getting quite comfy in the process.
We simply need to look at what those screaming fire are doing. We don’t need supercomputers or mass specs to look. We don’t need satellites or lead an arctic expedition. We don’t need to read a single new scientific paper. We simply need to a look long enough until the WTF epiphany begins. Only then will we demand back our seats, compensation for our popcorn, payment for our running injuries and go back to enjoying the movie.
This statment by Mr. Gillis just shows that his level of science understanding is at about the kindergarden level. Fortunately, many people recognize this. It’s like Al Gore stating that below the surface of Earth the temperature is “millions of degrees.”
In any case, to refute his level of technical knowledge further, detergents really act mostly on a physical level, whereas hydroxyl radical is one of the most active gas phase reactants. (I’m ignoring the use of enzyme additives to detergent formulations). To that point, hydroxyl radical might behave in some ways as a catalytic intermediate of an overall mechanism.
Curiousgeorge says: “Justin is good with weasel words, I’ll give him that: perhaps, conceivably, suggest, and so on.”
To revise an old GE motto:
“At the NY Times, weasel words are our most important product.”
Though the author of the article does not seem to have a handle on basic chemistry or the way earth’s environment, the commenters to his piece overwhelmingly are critical, and slag him mercilessly.
The commenters seem like they are from WUWT’s usual crew.
For example #6 reads-
“Fortunately we have something that continually cleans carbon dioxide out of the air. We call that something plants. Somewhat worrying is if the plants manage to clean out only about half of the carbon dioxide currently in the air their would be a shortage that would cause the rain forests, and pretty much everything else in the world to die.
Fortunately, of course, water vapor is by far the most significant “greenhouse gas”.”
It is a progressive increase of sea levels. That’s understandable 🙂
And I will say it again, the evidence from the Med (no tides) counts against sea level rise.
There are deep undercuts on the cliffs around Greece and Turkey, which lie precisely on the sea level (caused by wave action). Now I did think these cliffs may be ‘recent’ due to erosion. However, I have now found deposited calcite deposits, from streams flowing over the cliff-top, with layered deposits 25cm deep. This means these cliffs have been a feature in this state for many decades/centuries.
Now unless one proposes land movement is exactly in synch with sea level rise, for the erosion to be exactly at sea level, the evidence seems to suggest that sea levels have not changed for between two and five centuries. (depending on how long it takes to deposit 25cm of calcite, from a stream that can only flow in the winter months).
.
I love this graph. It puts it into perspective:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg
Anthony,
It is arguable that sea levels are not rising at all.
Just like temperature data, it all depends on what time frame is examined. Everything climate related goes in up and down cycles. Therefore, projecting a linear trend based upon 16 years of data is ill-advised.
In the case of temperature, we see that both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend wherein the latest warming is demonstrated to be not even remotely unusual.
Would it not follow that sea levels are, over that time frame, actually dropping? What if we examine sea levels starting at about 1930? That time frame exposes the up & down cycles of just that last 80 years. Those up & down cycles imply that projecting a linear trend based upon 16 years of data actually overestimates the likely condition we’ll see in 2100.
Click here & examine the longer term sea level evidence.
As Bugs Bunny so eloquently put it, “What a Maroon!”
Or perhaps a paraphrase of the classic lines from The Sixth Sense suits better:
“I see stupid people…. Walking around like regular people. They only see what they want to see. They don’t know they’re stupid . . . They’re everywhere!”
Exhibiting equal comprehension of basic science, Janet Napolitano and the US Department of Homeland Security will probably put the ‘Hydroxyl Radicals’ on the No Fly list now…..
I despair for and am shamed by my once great United States of America…….
A great example of why traditional media is losing both credibility & relevance, while modern web based media becomes dominant in our society.
Actually, water is the “most important” greenhouse gas. And the hydroxyl radical is 2/3 of the water molecule. If Mr. Gillis’ understanding of simple scientific facts is so poor, can his thoughts as “Assistant Business Editor” of the NY Times be trusted?
ShrNfr says:
January 7, 2011 at 10:05 am
I finally got banned from LGF. I pointed out that Charles didnot understand lapse rate when talking about mountain temperatures and melting glaciers.
Lots of folks seem not to apply science to what they hear to see if it is valid or not. The above article is just one more example.
Question:
Under the current conditions in the U.S. House, Senate and with Obama as President how long will Harry Reid etal be able to keep Yucca Mountain Nuke waste facility closed.
Seems a thread on how useful Nuke power could and should be would be useful just now.
It does need to be pointed out regarding the who, what, when, and how of this deal of keeping Nuke power off line as the price of other energy keeps getting ever higher.
Place the responsibility.
Thanks
As a postscript to my previous comment (currently awaiting moderation)…
In this post, I link to two interviews with Dr. Mörner.
Dr. Mörner discusses a number of problems with sea level analysis — ranging from observed time frames to accuracy of the data and more.
Latitude: the reason that CO2 is dropping permanently over geologic time is that the bulk of the planet’s original inventory of CO2 is locked up in limestone. The cold water reaction process of combining CO2 + basaltic rock to form limestone and sand is a permanent one. At some point the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will drop below 80 ppm, and plant life except for some grasses will no longer exist.
It comes as a bit of a shock to realize that the life cycle of our planet is about 90 per cent completed. Photosynthesis will no longer be possible at about the same time as the world’s oceans boil off. This all happens about 200-300 million years from now. Putting CO2 back in the atmosphere is something that we can do, though probably not to any significant degree, but the eventual loss of most of the world’s water inventory is not preventable.
The common practice for making projections on sea level is to extend the current rate (at the minimum) out for centuries. We know that doesn’t work for the stock market, so why should it work here?
A while ago, tokyoboy posted a Japan tide chart
http://i56.tinypic.com/15ewqwp.jpg
that goes back a century and shows cyclic tendencies. Our satellite records showing a continuous rise cover only the end, rising portion of the chart, so we could easily be at the end of the upswing and ready to head back down.
58 cm (the highest, worst case projections) would equal ~ 1.9 feet. Still far short of 3 and 6 feet.
Proves once again that you don’t have to pay peanuts to get monkeys…
Clarification:
When it is written “carbonaceous” period, are you trying to write ‘Carboniferous Period’ (in use outside of the United States), which North American geologists tend to subdivided into the Mississippian Period, and the Pennsylvanian Period?
Thanks.
Just read an article in “The Wall Street Journal” that mentioned how an apartment, in the Netherlands, was raided for pot plants which were being grown using a CO2 machine-betcha the grower goes to AGW demonstrations.
If you want a group of crazies, take a look at those… Especialy David Shearman.
Doctors for the Environment (Australia)
http://118.127.19.132/~deaorg/archive_site/index.php
Who was doing the measuring?