From the “fun with conjecture department”, another graduate school paper parroting the claim from NOAA’s Susan Solomon that excess man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
From CO2science: In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.
It seems to me that Gaia does a fine job of respirating CO2. It doesn’t just “sit there”, as you can see the process is quite dynamic:
More at NOAA ESRL Carbon Tracker
Via Eurekalert: If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer
While governments debate about potential policies that might curb the emission of greenhouse gases, new University of Washington research shows that the world is already committed to a warmer climate because of emissions that have occurred up to now.
There would continue to be warming even if the most stringent policy proposals were adopted, because there still would be some emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. But the new research shows that even if all emissions were stopped now, temperatures would remain higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels because the greenhouse gases already emitted are likely to persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
In fact, it is possible temperatures would continue to escalate even if all cars, heating and cooling systems and other sources of greenhouse gases were suddenly eliminated, said Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics. That’s because tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols, which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on.
“The aerosols would wash out quickly and then we would see an abrupt rise in temperatures over several decades,” he said.
Armour is the lead author of a paper documenting the research, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. His co-author is Gerard Roe, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences.
The global temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution, which began around the start of the 19th century. The scientists’ calculations took into account the observed warming, as well as the known levels of greenhouse gases and aerosols already emitted to see what might happen if all emissions associated with industrialization suddenly stopped.
In the best-case scenario, the global temperature would actually decline, but it would remain about a half-degree F higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels and probably would not drop to those levels again, Armour said.
There also is a possibility temperatures would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution, a threshold at which climate scientists say significant climate-related damage begins to occur.
Of course it is not realistic to expect all emissions to cease suddenly, and Armour notes that the overall effect of aerosols – particles of sea salt or soot from burning fossil fuels, for example – is perhaps the largest uncertainty in climate research.
But uncertainties do not lessen the importance of the findings, he said. The scientists are confident, from the results of equations they used, that some warming would have to occur even if all emissions stopped now. But there are more uncertainties, and thus a lower confidence level, associated with larger temperature increases.
Climate models used in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments take into consideration a much narrower range of the possible aerosol effects, or “forcings,” than are supported by actual climate observations, Armour said. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel, sponsored by the United Nations, makes periodic assessments of climate change and is in the process of compiling its next report.
As emissions of greenhouse gases continue, the “climate commitment” to a warmer planet only goes up, Armour said. He believes it is helpful for policy makers to understand that level of commitment. It also will be helpful for them to understand that, while some warming is assured, uncertainties in current climate observations – such as the full effect of aerosols – mean the warming could be greater than models suggest.
“This is not an argument to say we should keep emitting aerosols,” he said. “It is an argument that we should be smart in how we stop emitting. And it’s a call to action because we know the warming we are committed to from what we have emitted already and the longer we keep emitting the worse it gets.”
The paper was published in the Jan. 15 edition of Geophysical Research Letters.
If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Zeke Hausfather says:
Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem.
No it isn’t
“It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.”
Complete Bollocks. We KNOW the rate at which 14CO2 exits the atmosphere and the order of the reaction. It is about a decade and first-order.
“Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 20 percent or so being removed after 500 years and the remaining 10 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.”
Show me ANY dynamic system where the rapid sinks act in a saturated manner?
Go on, show me ANY system that behaves like this. Don’t you know what a steady state is?
Have you ever studied any kinetics?
…might, if, likely, possible, likely, if, probably, possibility, uncertainties, even if, should,…science, no…just bulldust…
CO2 persistence; various peer reviewed estimates.
Zeke Hausfather should learn Henry’s Law a more specific instantiation of Le Chatelier’s principle. Then learn the effect on biomass of the increase in CO2.
Nothing is linear in nature yet people persist in linear thinking.
KV says:
February 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Hi KV, thanks man! That’s good! But, most of us here are pretty familiar with GISS. In fact, we were instrumental in fixing one of their graphics just yesterday! But, you’re absolutely correct, one should seek to find the answers themselves. When you have more questions than answers, though, it is necessary to seek out others for their information. One does have to discern the fact from fiction when one does. But then, you have to do that also when sifting through data. Presenters, even governmental agencies, will sometimes be disingenuous.
Oh, I almost forgot, there’s a few here that are quite knowledgeable on the difficulties of the “Surface Record”. Many are very familiar with John L. Daly, Prof S. Fred Singer and Dr Vincent Gray. They are worth the read. You should go to http://surfacestations.org/ . Then, you should come back here.
And I thought carbon dioxide was colorless. It’s obviously red. Funny, when I exhale that 50,000 ppm on each breath I don’t see anything. /sarc
I like Doug’s observation, “And yet another model predicts a catastrophic end of the world unless we immediately destroy civilization.”
KV says:
February 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Aching to stop listening to political, emotional , scientific and pseudo-scientific mind-numbing BS from all sides and seeking information to help you make up your own minds about alleged AGW?
Right.
Dr. Richard North has drawn another conclusion:
We are all Revolutionaries now
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/02/we-are-revolutionaries-now.html
The proponents of the AGW scam talk about the First Global Revolution
see http://green-agenda.com
So if we want to resist their crooked theories and objectives we can only be Contra Revolutionaries.
Never in my life I could have imagined we could sink to such a level in such a short time only because of a group of eco fascist green hacks out to save the planet and destroy our civilization.
Why are the strongest seasonal changes in CO2 happening at such high lattitudes near the arctic?
And hey, I notice Australia produces no visible CO2 in winter – can we skip the Carbon Tax, Ms Gillard?
Luboš Motl (The Reference Frame) posted on this issue not too long ago:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/weather-in-year-3000-once-again.html
His approach is interesting and worth reading. He inserts Vostok ice core graphs.
As we are looking at CO2 I will ask a question. The ice core investigations claim a low CO2 value of about 180 ppm and say it is a global value. That is also a value I have seen as the minimum necessary for plants to live. If both are true statements then about every 100,000 years photosynthesis on Earth comes very close to shutting down. My searching has failed to shed light on this issue. Can anyone help?
Thanks, John
Watching the northern hemisphere “breathe” 10 ppm of CO2 per season is fascinating.
I wanted to understand how much CO2 was in the atmosphere in terms that I could understand, so I did a (very) rough calculation: If all of the CO2 above me was compressed and frozen into dry ice, how thick a layer would it make on the ground?
For the sake of my rough calculation I assumed that nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and the other trace gasses all have the same density as water. The weight of one atmosphere is 14.7 psi, equivalent to a water column 34 feet high. CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, and so .039% of 34 feet = 0.16 inches or 4 mm. It’s a very rough calculation, but I think it gives the right order of magnitude. My guess is that if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere precipitated out on the ground as a solid, it would only make a layer between an eighth and a quarter of an inch thick.
When you compare this to the amount of carbon stored in plants on the ground it starts to make sense why the plants grow so much more quickly when CO2 increases, and how they can lower the rate significantly in a single season.
Zeke Hausfather says:
quote
Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem.
unquote
Only if you persist in doing it by modelling. You could check the bomb 14C data, data data….
DocMartyn says:
quote
the disappearance of 14C from the atmospheric bomb testing give between 12-16 years,
unquote
Yes.
The video is fascinating and unexpected. Why does the northern hemisphere fall behind the southern? Is it just because there is less ocean? Or have we done something to the northern seas which destroys their ability to absorb CO2?
JF
Meanwhile in wintery summertime Aus there’s another scary story this morning on page three of SMH.
Can’t remember what it said though.
To illustrate Zeke’s point, think about an olden days greengrocer who deals only in cash. He turns over $100 per day, but is losing on average a nett $100 per month, and is down to his last $1000. A fairy godmother gives him $1200 in $10 bills. How long will that money last.
The actual bills might last only a few days, but they will be replaced by other bills. It should be about a year before his cash on hand is back to $1000.
The Essenhigh figure, and the C14 data quoted, of 5-14 years, is the molecular lifetime. It corresponds to the time that our GG keeps those $10 bills – a few days.
What counts is the time the total CO2 level is elevated, corresponding to the year’s reprieve for the GG. The CO2 molecules are exchanged, but the nett change in total CO2 is slow. The lifetime that Zeke and the AR4 are talking about is that much slower nett change.
Well, I have found it now.
The SMH seem to have copied the UK Gardian – how unusual!
Here is the headline:
QUOTE
Climate change doubled likelihood of devastating UK floods of 2000Researchers have for the first time quantified the part climate change played in increasing the risk of a severe flood
UNQUOTE
Now I suppose some pore trained ststistican will have to look into this and tell us where the researchers goofed up.
It’s getting quite booring.
What did that fine ancinet scietist say ?
Gobels was his name I recall:
Dang – I’ve forgotten.
No worries!
Zeke Hausfather says:
Zeke is actually mainly correct in what he says. I also initially looked at the residence time of specific molecules, and got 7 to 10 years for a time constant, but the problem is that as some CO2 is absorbed by oceans, some of the older CO2 is released to maintain the partial pressures, until the CO2 is sequestered (into weathered rock, shells and coral, dropping organic material to the ocean floor, and in long term plant growth). The net sequestration would give about a 50 year time constant and asymptotic decay from there.
However, if the present level of 40% more CO2 than 150 years ago has had such a small temperature rise effect (and much of the temperature rise was in fact due to recovery from the LIA), then these numbers are of little consequence. In fact, the largest effect by far seems to be the more healthy crop production.
Please excuse me.
I’m in severe pain this morning.
That does not seem to have improved my typing or spelling at all.
For a serious comment on this subject, see Bishop Hill, particularly Lapogus and earlier, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:42 PM :
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/16/light-blogging.html#comments
How long must this continue, how long?
Right.
That one pushed me over the edge, went up on the roof in a handmade pair of Tin foil nappies (aluminium diaper for the US folk), slapped my chest and dared the God of Carbon dioxide to smite me.
Eventually I got bored, and came back down with an odd set of tan lines, plus a strange static build in places unmentionable.
I’m sending the used tinfoil apparel to them, it can get Sky sports, if you bend over far enough – methinks that’ll fit both their funding model and philosophical outlook.
Julian Flood says:
February 16, 2011 at 7:41 pm
The video is fascinating and unexpected. Why does the northern hemisphere fall behind the southern? Is it just because there is less ocean? Or have we done something to the northern seas which destroys their ability to absorb CO2?
=======================================================
Obviously, by watching the video, one can see that the NH does indeed still “absorb” CO2. I would attribute the larger amount in the NH to heavier industrialization. There’s more there, because more is emitted there………just guessing.
It was fascinating and unexpected. The currents are visible as is a respiration. If the video is valid, then even the term “CO2 persistence” is inaccurate and inadequate.
Zeke Hausfather says:
February 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.
Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.
…
This is an excellent explanation of the reality that is facing us. I wish that some of the so called skeptics would address this issue in a scientific fashion, and explain what is wrong with your argument, in their opinion. It would improve the level of discussion greatly.
Great graphics! Kudos to whoever put that together. As to the other stuff …. well we all know what KoolAid they are drinking. Sorry but given the geological record on CO2, and no I’m not talking the last 800,000 years (that hardly qualifies as geologic time), we are way low from average.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
Even if you just limit it to tertiary period we should look at 1000 ppm as safe and anything lower is flirting with disaster.
Zeke is correct. You have to look at the rates of CO2 absorption by the oceans and CO2 emission by the oceans. If there is an imbalance the CO2 ppm in the air will change.
After reading NASA’s explanation of the carbon tracker (really CO2 tracker) I can’t put too much faith in the video. What is shown is not measured CO2, but a calculated CO2. The CO2 decreases in the NH summer because the model puts in increased photosynthesis in the summer.
“eadler says:
February 16, 2011 at 8:38 pm
What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.
…..This is an excellent explanation of the reality that is facing us. I wish that some of the so called skeptics would address this issue in a scientific fashion”
I have read many articles saying that this or that plant grows so much faster when the CO2 concentration is raised by this amount. In my opinion, one of the first things we would need to know is how much more photosynthesis occurs world wide with a CO2 concentration of 390 ppm versus 280 ppm. Are there any biologists who can give even a rough answer to this question?