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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I live in Virginia Beach and my family has worked the Lynnhaven Inlet since the late 19th century (oyster beds, crab pots, etc.). Some of the same bulkheads my great grand father put in place are still there and there is no indication of any sea level rise there. We have weathered lots and lots of hurricanes (including the infamous Ash Wednesday storm) and innumerable nor’easters. If the sea level is rising then the land is rising with it (or nobody told the inlet).
I really hope the readers of the NYT if they have any more common sense than Justin Gills.
His article doesn’t meet any journalistic standard and shouldn’t have been published.
It’s as if all the Climate GIGO is processed by a mentally ill patient and it all ends up in the NYT.
But what can we expect with President who has vowed to stop the rise of the oceans and the rise of global temperatures.
The climate change propaganda is taking on Kafkaesque proportions and it’s getting worst.
The Denver Global Warming Conference is another example of the raging madness and I really wonder when this money consuming nightmare is going to stop.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/new-forecast-for-denver-global-warming-conference/
Illiterate is the first word to come to mind.
Second attempt with HTML errors corrected:
Christoph Dollis asks:
“Who was doing the measuring [of Phanerozoic CO2 levels]?”
Answer:
Robert A. Berner and Zavareth Kothavala
Department of Geology and Geophysics
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109
American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204
Click here for the peer reviewed paper.
Click here for the Cliff Notes (and to put their study into context).
One need not be contemporaneously present in order to “measure”. Ergo, the humor allegation fails.
APACHEWHOKNOWS says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm
“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.”
Little known to most, but at least 1/2 of the nuclear fuel powering US nuclear reactors at the moment is recycled nuclear bombs. This has depressed prices in the Uranium market and made recycling spent fuel roads ‘less then economical’. Once we are done recycling nuclear bombs Uranium prices will rise and recycling spent fuel rods will be more financially interesting.
Uranium was selling at $10/lb in the 1990’s and is currently selling at $60/lb.
To paraphrase the old adage:
“Truth is the first casualty of AGW.”
“Unfortunately, the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, ”
You would be surprised how many people look like deer in the headlights when you bring up water vapor. Seriously try it on your favorite warmer sometime. Totally blank look and disbelief.
I would add one question to the chap who made the above statement:
Q) What percentage of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to water vapor?
I’ve asked that question for close to 10 years of all the pro and con AWG groups and scientists. The numbers I have got back are an unbelievable range. Between 65 and 98 are the numbers I’ve seen and been told (assuming they knew what it was of course).
I know it isn’t evenly distributed with near saturation at the equator and next to nil at the poles and yes different sizes of water vapor interact with different wavelengths to have different effects. Some give rise to clouds that block the solar heat, some trap. Is it 50-50? 70-30? 10-90? Nobody seems to know.
If our understanding of the largest GHG is so lacking anyone claiming to have figured climate out beyond debate is in a sever case of hubris.
Anthony astonished
———–
He writes:
Unfortunately, the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is not one of those broken down by the hydroxyl radical.
Zounds!
————
Well I’m pretty sure Gillis understands the actual situation with respect to OH. So my interperation of this is that he is explaining this for the benefit of that part of his readership which do not. Which is probably most if them.
And come to think of it a significant proportion of Anthony’s readers would also jump to the conclusion that OH would solve all their CO2 fears.
More science illiteracy?
They tested dirt found here on Earth, with perchlorate as they found in Martian soil, they found “fingerprints” of combusted organics… Therefore there are organics on Mars!
Someone please double-check if I read that piece right. And will someone please explain how any dirt on or near the surface of this planet could possibly not have evidence of combusted organics? Given this planet’s history with massive natural wildfires, let alone mankind’s recent burning of fossil fuels, with soot being found on mountaintops and combustion products circulating in the atmosphere, how could that ever be possible?
Lazy,
Can you teach me how to mind-read, too? It would come in handy knowing who is jumping to conclusions.
Thank you mariwarcwm
One purpose of this blog is to demonstrate that THINKING is not a one way street.
As with CO2, Cholesterol and others, truth is hidden behind name changes and other sleights of hand.
If simple fraud, why did it take 12 years to uncover>
Why when you discover truth it is a crime to be paid, yet its it fine to take billions in charity money to make profits?
You only need to discover Polio did not disappear, only the name changed. See same old trick.
Same people same tricks.
Rocket Science
Pat Moffit
“We simply need to look at what those screaming fire are doing.”
So right. They aren’t looking for an extinguisher. They are selling exit door passes.
TimM says:
While there may be some uncertainty in the number, the real reason for the range of answers is that
(1) it is not a well-defined question.
(2) some of the higher end answers that you have heard (like 98%) are not based on science but apparently on nonsense like just comparing the ratio of the concentrations of H2O and CO2.
The reason that it is not well-defined is that you get different answers from different starting points. For example, you can ask what fraction of the greenhouse effect goes away if the water vapor is removed while keeping all other greenhouse gases constant or you can ask what fraction of the greenhouse effect you get if you start with an atmosphere without greenhouse gases and add water vapor.
There may be a few more reasons for ambiguities (e.g., whether one includes clouds…i.e., condensed water…or just the vapor form in the estimate).
Also, note that there are more complicated factor involved too: For example, a rough breakdown if you don’t want to get too precisely is that water vapor and clouds provide ~75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 ~20%, and the other non-condensable GHGs ~5%. However, if you were to remove all of the non-condensable GHGs from the atmosphere, our current understanding is that the resulting temperature drop would result in a significant decrease in water vapor which in turn would reduce the greenhouse effect further…and in the end, most of the greenhouse effect would collapse. (See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract ) In fact, there is a fair bit of evidence that such an iceball or slushball earth occurred in the past.
DSW says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:16 pm
“If the sea level is rising then the land is rising with it (or nobody told the inlet).”
Ditto, here, for Daytona Beach. Once upon a time, I posted a lengthy story of my family’s familiarity with Daytona Beach and the fact that we could detect no sea level rise. As expected, a Class A Warmer responded with an explanation of how oceans cannot be expected to rise uniformly…blah blah blah. Clearly, he was on his way to yet another TOTALLY USELESS GLOBAL AVERAGE: Global Average Sea Level. Each of them is the seventh nerd of a seventh nerd.
Maybe we should start a “Global Average” contest. I nominate Global Average Volume of Urine Deposited Directly on the Ground by Human Males.
Ralph says:
January 7, 2011 at 11:53 am
“And I will say it again, the evidence from the Med (no tides) counts against sea level rise.”
As I live in Cyprus I can only agree with you Ralph. Harbours that have been around the island for many, many years show the same thing. No change or alteration to the quays/jetties and the same old fishing boats mooring up!
Maybe the island is floating! 🙂
“One need not be contemporaneously present in order to “measure”. Ergo, the humor allegation fails.”
Oh for goodness sakes. Actually you DO have to be, or have an instrument, present (or at least directed at) to measure.
There is a difference between a reconstruction based on both current measurements and a model or theory … and gathering data, a direct measurement (of atmospheric CO2). It is you who are not getting the distinction.
Notice that the first paper you linked to begins with, “A REVISED MODEL” in the headline.
I don’t dispute for a moment atmospheric CO2 levels were higher previously. There are many reasons to believe this. MEASURING atmospheric CO2 in previous eras was not one of those reasons.
Why should we be surprised that the ‘journalists’ at the NYT do not understand basic physics or science?
They believe in climate apocalypse, after all.
Pete H sez:
“Maybe the island is floating! :-)”
Or, in the case of the IPCC data, maybe the land is sinking (for reals):
“the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you should not use.”
But, be very careful if you dare to question the Great Wizards of Oz at the IPCC!
[snip – none of that here, rephrase the question politely if you wish to ask one, and no I don’t care if this snip upsets you- Anthony]
Anthony poses:
1. What would happen if we rid the Earth of CO2 ?
2. Or more technically, what would happen if this process scavenged CO2 down to 150 parts per million (or lower) globally?
______________
Of what possible value does posing strawman questions like these add to constructive discussion of these subjects, Anthony?
REPLY: They aren’t strawman questions, but points to ponder. The author bemoans lack of CO2 reduction via hydroxyls (as if they could anyway). If you follow the links I provided you’ll see some useful information on the logarithmic nature of CO2 LWIR response in the atmosphere. In one of the graphs, you’ll see that the earth at one point very nearly met with such a low Co2 ppm value that it would have been a catastrophe. People who want to try anything to reduce CO2 seem to forget that it has a tremendous value to the biosphere. Personally, I’m not worried at all about the extra CO2 that has been added. Here’s another link you might find interesting. And this one. – Anthony
Jack Greer,
Those are not strawman arguments. They are reductio ad absurdum arguments, which are entirely legitimate.
You need to know the difference before you comment, or it will look like you came here from climate progress.
Mr. Greer,
aut disce aut discede
Christoph Dollis sez:
“Actually you DO have to be, or have an instrument, present (or at least directed at) to measure.”
Sorry sir…
You have confused the process of Instrumental Measurement with the broader process of Measurement.
But, thanks for playing.
Next…
I have to admit, it was a long time ago that I was in college, but when I was there most of the survey courses in the liberal arts school of the university I went to were highly populated by journalism majors. I seldom saw them in any of the advanced science, political science, or history courses (I took no advanced science courses myself, so my observations arise from what I was told by friends at school). It always seemed to me that j-majors were more interested in obtaining a smattering of knowledge, just enough to function in the world, but never learned any subject in real depth. I suspect the j-school majors operate the same way today, as can be evidenced by the work here of Mr. Gillis, who has clearly screwed the pooch with this ignorant piece he wrote. Which is why I believe the j-school is one of the lowest in any university.
Good work as always exposing this, Anthony.
Anthony REPLY: They aren’t strawman questions, but points to ponder. The author bemoans lack of CO2 reduction via hydroxyls (as if they could anyway). If you follow the links I provided you’ll see some useful information on the logarithmic nature of CO2 LWIR response in the atmosphere. In one of the graphs, you’ll see that the earth at one point very nearly met with such a low Co2 ppm value that it would have been a catastrophe. People who want to try anything to reduce CO2 seem to forget that it has a tremendous value to the biosphere. Personally, I’m not worried at all about the extra CO2 that has been added. Here’s another link you might find interesting. And this one. – Anthony
_______________
Your questions are absolutely strawmen – no one other than yourselves are talking about zero CO2 or 150 ppm CO2 …. The AGW side is arguing to minimize the dangerous impact of human intervention on the Earth’s natural carbon cycles and by extension Earth’s climate. CO2 is one element of natural processes – nobody is claiming otherwise.
REPLY: Thank you for your differing opinion. Too bad you refuse to learn anything from the links provided. That’s your loss. – Anthony