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.
KV says:
February 17, 2011 at 3:42 am
James Sexton says: But, most of us here are pretty familiar with GISS……..
————————————————————————————————
IC, wonderful then! Our posts complemented each others quite nicely. No offense was taken, even before the explanation.
“jka says:
Zeke is correct, let me explain with an alalogy
Place a leaky bucket under a dripping tap with a dripping rate exactly equal to te leakage so the water level reamins in equilibrium”
Stop right there. What you are describing in this system is a STEADY STATE and not an equilibrium. A steady state is not an equilibrium, the analytical tools used to describe a steady state are completely different to those used to describe and equilibrium or near equilibrium state.
But let use use your model.
The height of the water measured in the steady state is a function of the sum of the influx and the efflux.
The influx rate is zero order, i.e. 1 liter per minute.
The efflux from the system is dependent on the height of the water, the efflux is approximately first order with respect to height (hence pressure).
Therefore, you will find an non-liner, exponential, relationship between the height of the water in the bucket and the flow rate into the bucket. Moreover, one could add food coloring at any point and calculate the efflux rate by monitoring the disappearance of the optical signal in the bucket; juts like the 14C signal in the atmosphere.
The take home message is this; postindustrial steady state = [CO2] 280 ppm , present steady state [CO2] 360 pp means that the humans have increased the influx into the atmosphere by 360/280 approximately 30%. The fraction of fossilized CO2, 4C stripped CO2 in the atmosphere should be about 30%.
Zeke
May be right but it’s all models and guesses. More to the point is that there is still no evidence of harmful effect from CO². Zeke is very good with cherry picks and graphs you need to watch the pea though.
jka says:
February 17, 2011 at 3:52 am
Zeke is correct, let me explain with an alalogy..
jka, both views are cvorrect. Change the RT for an individual molecule to 50 years and you also change the rate of decline. However, as Smokey says it is irrelevant. What matters is cost benefit of the increase. So far there are no credibile costs, no consistent correlations to the increase in CO2 that show an corresponding acceleration in sea level rise, an increase in hurricanes, droughts or floods. Nada, zip zilch. However the benefits of increased CO2 are known and well documented.
Wheat, corn, rice and soy are perhaps the four largest food crops. Here is the results of 522 different experiments on these four foods with a 300 ppm increase inCO2 from ambient.
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1% increase in bio-mass
Standard Error 1.8%
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 179
Arithmetic Mean 46.5% increase in bio-mass
Standard Error 2.8%
Zea mays L. [Corn]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 20
Arithmetic Mean 21.3% increase in bio-mass
Standard Error 4.9%
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1% increase in bio mass
Standard Error 1.8%
Great animation !
I see the peak of the North hemisphere CO2 bloom around the Vernal Equinox is much weaker in 2002 and 2007, that blatantly must be the warmer Feb to April in those Years. (look at the Siberian region)
While the CO2 deficit around June to August is much weaker in 2003 and 2006, again very clearly temperature driven.
I would imagine the whole signal would look remarkably different if the Taiga disappeared over night.
based on that video, shouldn’t they be measuring atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica instead of Hawaii? Waay too much periodicity in the northern hemisphere.
***based on that video, shouldn’t they be measuring atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica instead of Hawaii? Waay too much periodicity in the northern hemisphere.***
They probably didn’t know that when they set up the CO2 observatory at Mauna Loa. If they had, one supposes that they might have put their site elsewhere. However, in addition to the continuous measurements in Hawaii, “they” also make weekly “flask” measurements at other sites including the high northern and southern latitudes.
Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics
I wonder what qualifications are needed to become aUW doctoral student?
Cant be very much from the looks of this article!
This just in:
NEW HAMPSHIRE, AS USUAL, CAN LEAD THE WAY
Repealing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
This upcoming Wednesday, February 23, 2011, the RGGI bill will be voted on by the full House. This legislation, if passed, will remove New Hampshire from participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (A regional Cap and Trade Program). The RGGI has proved to be a massive failure that is serving only to damage New Hampshire’s economic competitiveness; withdrawal can’t come soon enough!
I encourage you to contact your legislator today and express your strong support for removing NH from this regional Cap and Tax program. New Hampshire residents such as you have already spent $28.2 million in the last two years on this hidden government tax.
Please, fellow New Hampshirites, call your representatives, or better, write them at once! $28M could have maintained all of our roads this winter.
LIVE FREE OR DIE
CarbonTracker provides a very pretty picture… hopefully their sites are better screened than surface temp sites. Too bad that we lost OCO…
http://www.meteorologynews.com/2009/02/24/global-warming-satellite-lost-in-space/
What is CarbonTracker?
CarbonTracker is a system that calculates carbon dioxide uptake and release at the Earth’s surface over time. It estimates the carbon dioxide exchange from an ‘atmospheric point of view’. Since CO2 mole fractions in the atmosphere reflect the sum of all the CO2 exchange at the surface, they form the ultimate record of the combined human and natural influence on greenhouse gas levels.
The CarbonTracker observing system
CarbonTracker surface flux estimates are optimally consistent with measurements of ~31,500 flask samples of air from 81 sites across the world, ~27,800 four-hourly averages of continuously measured CO2 at 13 sites (10 in North America, plus observatories at Mauna Loa, Hawaii; Barrow, Alaska, South Pole; and American Samoa), and ~23,800 four-hourly averages from towers at 13 locations within the continent (see Figure 3). Eight of these towers sample air from heights more than 100m above ground level.
Regards,
Bob
One question. What difference does residency time of Co2 make if Co2 follows temperature?
Observations, from watching that graphic:
1. The CO2 is mostly in the northern half of the NH
2. The CO2 in the SH almost never gets up to a”average”
3. The CO2 in the NH is seasonal, with the summers being below “average” and the winters and spring being above “average”
4. The little bit of above-average CO2 each year in the SH is very brief and covers only perhaps 2% of the SH
5. The Mona Loa CO2 readings do not represent the “average” of the NH and SH totals. Its location almost never represents the SH at all. It only in SEP-OCT-NOV does it get below 370.
It is important to be skeptical of this graphic, even if it may represent the gist of what is going on. I would question what data this is based on, with its momentary flickers of higher and lower tongues in areas I am certain do not have CO2 detectors in the resolution this graphic depicts. Likewise, patterns over the oceans can hardly be anything but extrapolations. No CO2 detectors are spread out over the SH (~80% ocean) nor in the NH oceans in such resolution. Likewise, like the GISS 250-km and 1250-km resolution avg. temperature maps, notice that the worst CO2 depicted is in the far north, where we already know the number of stations reporting is very minimal – yet it shows all sorts of resolution. This cannot be anything but extrapolation.
It is GIGO and thus suspect, no matter that it seems to produce imagery that supports what we think is going on.
There often seems to be confusion about the residence time of an individual component molecule within a place and the time for any change in the bulk amount in that place to change.
Perhaps an example closer to home may help.
Most people know that most of he molecules that make up their body today are not the same as the molecules that made up their body a few years ago. There are some limited exceptions in teeth and some regions of bones, but most of the tissues of the body recycle over varying timescales.
Carbon leaves the body as CO2 and indigestible organic compounds, and enters it as digestible organic compounds. Obviously the carbon in the food you eat may only reside in the body for a short time, a glucose drink may see almost all the carbon in the glucose molecule lost as CO2 within a few hours in an active person. Carbon in fats and carbohydrates may reside in the body for much longer, but is rarely going to be present for more than a few years.
Despite this, other things being equal, the total amount of carbon in a persons body will be relatively stable. Obviously it decreases overnight when no carbon is added, or during fasting. But there are various homeostatic mechanisms that restrict large swings in the total carbon content.
The exception is if the intake of carbon is increased by more than the homeostatic compensations can cope with. Then the carbon content of a person will increase, usually as long-chain fat molecules. It only takes a few percent extra carbon in the diet for it to incrementally increase within the body despite the actual residence time of any single molecule being quite short, and virtually unchanged by the increased input.
But as anybody knows who has tried to shed weight gained by an increase in the carbon input, it is not easy. Both the rate of input has to be cut and the rate of output increased.
Edim says: February 17, 2011 at 4:38 am
I was unable to get their site to plot any data. The y-axis for CO2 in ppm goes to 1.0 ppm max, which seems unreasonable. I was also unable to graph precip from any of the measuring sites, the y-axis for precip was 1.0mm max, which also seems unreasonable. Anyone get this to work? I’m using Firefox.
Interesting video. Also worth watching is “Time history of atmospheric CO2 ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4&feature=player_embedded).
Residence time of CO2 is on the order of 5 years for an individual molecule. But when it leaves the atmosphere it’s just swapping places with another CO2 molecule in the oceans, in the carbon cycle of plants, etc. – the time for an increase of CO2 to be absorbed, primarily by the oceans, is on the order of centuries.
A discussion of this particular canard of denial is available at skepticalscience.
@- Feet2theFire says:
February 17, 2011 at 8:46 am
“I would question what data this is based on, with its momentary flickers of higher and lower tongues in areas I am certain do not have CO2 detectors in the resolution this graphic depicts. Likewise, patterns over the oceans can hardly be anything but extrapolations. No CO2 detectors are spread out over the SH (~80% ocean) nor in the NH oceans in such resolution.”
It might have helped your skepticism if you had followed the link and read some of the documentation on how the graphic is generated. There may not be measurements of CO2 world-wide with the resolution apparent in some of the ripples and tongues of variation over oceans, but we do know the wind and air movements to that resolution and it would be ridiculous to assume that the CO2 in the atmosphere does not share those atmospheric movements.
The resolution of measurements may also be greater than you suspect, see here –
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/documentation_obs.html#ct_doc
Which shows the wide global distribution, including 6 around the South pole.
“It is GIGO and thus suspect, no matter that it seems to produce imagery that supports what we think is going on.”
That is an odd reversal of what is going on.
The measurements and observations of wind made for meteorology could be all dismissed as garbage, but I suspect that meteorologists may object to the basic data of their subject being thrown out so cavalierly.
We THINK this is what is going on, because the direct measurements we have, and that most people are reasonably sure are NOT garbage, indicate this pattern of distribution and change.
Throwing out the many measurements made of CO2 levels and the data on air movements without some justification would seem arbitrary. Dismissing the best understanding we have of the chemical processes that source and sink CO2 without detailing your objections also seems a little capricious. You seem to hint that the graphic is distorted by some attempt to make it fit a pre-judged outcome. Perhaps you could be specific about what this outcome may be and how the graphic supports it.
@- David says:
February 17, 2011 at 5:21 am
“… However the benefits of increased CO2 are known and well documented.
Wheat, corn, rice and soy are perhaps the four largest food crops. Here is the results of 522 different experiments on these four foods with a 300 ppm increase inCO2 from ambient.
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1% increase in bio-mass
Standard Error 1.8%
…”
I wonder if you could document the source of this research.
The problem I have with this claim is that making an admittedly brief search of the literature on the response of common wheat to raised CO2 does not produce anything like as many experiments as 235. With various permutations of the terms, (Wheat Triticum aestivum, raised CO2 PCO2 FACE etc) I could not get the number above about 50.
The most recent experiment I did find was this one –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19778369
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2009 Nov;11 Suppl 1:60-9.
Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.
Högy P, Wieser H, Köhler P, Schwadorf K, Breuer J, Franzaring J, Muntifering R, Fangmeier A
“Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. TRISO) was grown for three consecutive seasons in a free-air carbon dioxide (CO(2)) enrichment (FACE) field experiment in order to examine the effects on crop yield and grain quality. CO(2) enrichment promoted aboveground biomass (+11.8%) and grain yield (+10.4%). However, adverse effects were predominantly observed on wholegrain quality characteristics. Although the thousand-grain weight remained unchanged, size distribution was significantly shifted towards smaller grains, which may directly relate to lower market value. Total grain protein concentration decreased significantly by 7.4% under elevated CO(2), and protein and amino acid composition were altered….
With regard to mixing and rheological properties of the flour, a significant increase in gluten resistance under elevated CO(2) was observed. CO(2) enrichment obviously affected grain quality characteristics that are important for consumer nutrition and health, and for industrial processing and marketing, which have to date received little attention.”
@izen –
You make my argument for me. That map of CO2 sampling stations is even less resolution than GISS. Ooooh!, a whole SIX stations in the Antarctic? I am impressed! /snarc
You and I both know that the wind patterns have prevailing directions and velocities, but from year to year, those vary by a lot still. But to plug those into REAL data and then produce a graphic that purports to be the REAL deal – that is not real, and we should not be expected to accept it as real.
You misrepresent what I am saying. I am not saying to throw out anything. I am saying not to ADD anything. I am saying that this graphic does not represent the history, just a patched-together surmise of the totality, based on patchy data. REAL history would be to have, say, 100-km blobs around each CO2 station and leave the rest of the global picture grayed-out. To fill in the rest with these streamers is imagination, not science.
There are all of 17 oceanic data collection points, with some few additional coastal points. And those are supposed to represent over 70% of the globe? Ay-yi-yi.
Izen says:
“The problem I have with this claim is that making an admittedly brief search…”
Brief, as in a few microseconds? There is plenty of info on the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. Why do you think farmers use it? Because they have extra money to waste on CO2 generators??
Face it, CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. Sorry about what that does to your alarmist belief system.
izen says:
February 17, 2011 at 10:06 am
@- David says:
February 17, 2011 at 5:21 am
“… However the benefits of increased CO2 are known and well documented.
Wheat, corn, rice and soy are perhaps the four largest food crops. Here is the results of 522 different experiments on these four foods with a 300 ppm increase inCO2 from ambient.
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1% increase in bio-mass
Standard Error 1.8%
…”
I wonder if you could document the source of this research.
The problem I have with this claim is that making an admittedly brief search of the literature on the response of common wheat to raised CO2 does not produce anything like as many experiments as 235.”
One paper can involve many different experiments producing many different results.
Here is the link, http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticuma.php below is a print out through only B
Akin et al. (1995)
FACE, wet treatment 13%
Akin et al. (1995)
FACE, dry treatment 35%
Andre and Du Cloux (1993)
growth chambers, no water stress, day 23 23%
Andre and Du Cloux (1993)
growth chambers, no water stress, day 30 14%
Andre and Du Cloux (1993)
growth chambers, no water stress, day 38 30%
Andre and Du Cloux (1993)
growth chambers, water stress, day 12 45%
Andre and Du Cloux (1993)
growth chambers, water stress, day 36 23%
Andre and Du Cloux (1993)
growth chambers, water stress, day 50,14 days after recovery of normal watering 37%
Balaguer et al. (1995)
controlled environment chambers, leaves 52%
Balaguer et al. (1995)
controlled environment chambers, roots 38%
Balagueret al. (1995)
controlled environment chambers, stems 56%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 0.25 mM Na2HPO4 37%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 1.0 inositol hexaphosphate 17%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 0.25 mM inositol hexaphosphate -4%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 1.0 mM glucose-1-phosphate 45%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 0.25 mM glucose-1-phosphate 7%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 0 mM P 30%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled-environment cabinets, solution culture, transient P deficiency,1.0 mM KH2PO4 61%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled-environment cabinets, solution culture, transient P deficiency,0.01 mM KH2PO4 64%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled-environment cabinets, solution culture, transient P deficiency,1.0 mM inositol hexaphosphate 39%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled-environment cabinets, solution culture, continuous P deficiency,1.0 mM KH2PO4 19%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled-environment cabinets, solution culture, continuous P deficiency,0.01 mM KH2PO4 20%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled-environment cabinets, solution culture, continuous P deficiency,1.0 mM inositol hexaphosphate 20%
Barrett et al. (1998)
controlled glasshouse, aseptically grown in agar, 1.0 mM Na2HPO4 63%
Batts et al. (1997)
Grain biomass of plants grown in the field for four consecutive seasons within polyethylene-covered tunnels along which a temperature gradient was imposed 6 to 153%
Bencze et al. (2004a)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity in pots in growth chambers under normal temperature 30%
Bencze et al. (2004a)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity in pots in growth chambers; aboveground biomass at normal temperature; cv Emma 29%
Bencze et al. (2004a)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity in pots in growth chambers; aboveground biomass under heat stress; cv Emma 35%
Bencze et al. (2004a)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity in pots in growth chambers; aboveground biomass under normal temperature; cv Mezofold 19%
Bencze et al. (2004a)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity in pots in growth chambers; aboveground biomass under heat stress; cv Mezofold 11%
Bencze et al. (2004b)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed in pots in growth chambers for a total of 128 days after planting; cultivar Mv Martina 11%
Bencze et al. (2004b)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed in pots in growth chambers for a total of 128 days after planting; cultivar Mv Emma 9%
Bencze et al. (2005)
Aboveground biomass of plants grown in controlled environment chambers at ambient temperature; cv. Mezofold 6%
Bencze et al. (2005)
Aboveground biomass of plants grown in controlled environment chambers subjected to 15 days of +11°C elevated daytime temperature; cv. Martina 20%
Bencze et al. (2005)
Aboveground biomass of plants grown in controlled environment chambers at ambient temperature; cv. Emma 18%
Bencze et al. (2005)
Aboveground biomass of plants grown in controlled environment chambers subjected to 15 days of +11°C elevated daytime temperature; cv. Emma 13%
Benczeet al. (2004a)
Well-watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity in pots in growth chambers under heat-stressed temperature 30%
Benczeet al. (2005)
Aboveground biomass of plants grown in controlled environment chambers subjected to 15 days of +11°C elevated daytime temperature; cv. Mezofold 18%
Benczeet al. (2005)
Aboveground biomass of plants grown in controlled environment chambers at ambient temperature; cv. Martina 24%
Izen, you appear concerned about the grain quantity. Here are some studies on that aspect….
Manderscheid et al. (2003)
Grain-yield biomass of well watered plants grown from seed to maturity in the field at Braunschweig (Germany) and enclosed by open-top chambers 14%
Mulholland et al. (1997)
Grown from seed in field within open-top chambers for full season (60 ppb O3); cv. Minaret; grain dry weight 36%
Prior et al. (2005)
Grain yield of plants grown from seed to maturity within open-top chambers constructed upon 7-m x 76-m x 2-m-deep soil bins filled with a reconstructed Decatur silt loam 31%
Sharma-Natu et al. (1997)
Grain biomass of the cultivar Kalyansona grown from seed to maturity out-of-doors in open-top chambers 49%
According to Hansard (the official record of the UK Parliament), Andrew Bridgen MP said in the House of Commons last Friday that
“each tonne of coal burned for power generation produces 2,215 kg of carbon dioxide”.
Would someone more knowledgeable care to explain? Is the O2 so heavy?
It is very important that people also look at the video recommded by KR (@90). The video shown at the top of the page has a major fault. I believe the intent of the video was to illustrate the differences between the NH and the SH as well as the seasons. However, in order to show this, the colorbar scale must change over time. For example, the scale for November 2000 is (about) 360-380, but by November 2008 is 375-395. People could easily miss this very important point that the environment is NOT “sucking it all out of the atmosphere.”
Remember, agriculture is not an effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Once crops die or are harvested, that CO2 begins a new process in which it is returned to the environment. The everglades has a major problem with invasive species that thrive on nitrogen. One idea was to use other plants that attempt to store/fix the nitrogen. But, when these plants die (usually due to a freeze or other sudden event), all of the nitrogen contained within the plant is now available and the invasive species proceed to occupy this area. The CO2 cycle has many parts and is not one-way into plants.
As for people claiming the virtues of CO2 on plant growth. Yes, in a controlled environment, if one increases the CO2 you can achieve higher growth rates. But, in the real world, higher CO2 also brings higher temperatures, which impacts where and how long things grow (as well as plant reproduction). This also leads to larger regions for insects to infest plants and crops (pine beetle is one example). And higher CO2 is better for weeds as well. Take a look. Of course, you could just use more herbicide and genetically modified crops and just ruin the environment in a different way.
Sensor operator,
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that the rise in CO2 has been harmful. It hasn’t.
Read up on the climate null hypothesis, which shows there has been no global change due to the rise in harmless and beneficial CO2.
The entire “carbon” scare is based on the mistaken belief that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Relax. There is zero evidence that CAGW exists outside of the minds of true believers.
Bill Illis says:
February 17, 2011 at 4:15 am
I note you are citing net figures for the oceans and biosphere. These are differences between very much larger and not so easy to estimate fluxes in and out.
Given the small amount of total man made emissions, how reliable is the math about how much man made CO2 is being added, I wonder. And if the oceanic or biosphere absorptions increase just a little – I think they are about 250 Gt, from the NASA data I’ve inspected – then the whole picture changes. A lot more plant growth would do the trick, i.e. mop up the fossil fuel emissions.
Which is not to say we shouldn’t migrate to cleaner energy, and more secure (politically) energy (gas a good start, replacing coal), but why panic and risk destroying economies en route? (and in the case of the UK, seriously risk the lights going out if present policies continue unchanged much longer)