From the Oh noes, we’re almost doomed department:
For the first time in roughly 5 million years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could top 400 parts per million in the Northern Hemisphere next month.
What Doyle Rice is writing about is this Tweet from Scripps:
399.72 parts per million CO2 in air
April 25, 2013http://t.co/5Q2FLbb4ix— Keeling_Curve (@Keeling_curve) April 26, 2013
Interesting how a single Tweet can become an entire news story, especially since Mauna Loa data still has a ways to go. It’s almost as if Doyle can’t wait for this to happen.
Expect a plethora of gloom and doom stories next month or maybe the month after when MLO hits 400.
Note that the seasonally corrected trend number has a ways to go and Doyle in his article cites the unofficial number, not yet released, and often corrected later:
As of Tuesday, the reading was 398.44 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa.
At Scripps, they are already gearing up for the announcement, trying to visualize what 400 PPM looks like. Apparently, it looks like a fossil skull (see their story below). For the average person, they won’t notice anything, pre 400 CO2 will look exactly to them like post 400 CO2, and just like the Y2K bug, it is nothing more than a number, and nothing will happen when that threshold is crossed. Though, if there is any severe weather anywhere in the world within that month, you can bet some fool (like Joe Romm) will try to link the two events.
From Scripps:
What Does 400 ppm Look Like?
As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists look back four million years for answers on what to expect from climate
The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.
Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.
As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene.
In the oceans, fossils mark the spread of tropical and subtropical marine life northward along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. Both observations and models of the Pliocene Pacific Ocean show the existence of frequent, intense El Niño cycles—a climatic oscillation that today delivers heavy rainfall to the western U.S. causing both intense flooding but also increasing the river flows needed to sustain salmon runs. The absence of significant ocean upwelling in the warmest part of the Pliocene would have suppressed fisheries along the west coasts of the Americas, and deprived seabirds and marine mammals of food supplies. Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.
Richard Norris, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, said the concentration of CO2 is one means of comparison, but what is not comparable, and more significant, is the speed at which 400 ppm is being surpassed today.
“I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur, even though the time scales for the Pliocene warmth are different than the present,” Norris said. “The main lagging indicator is likely to be sea level just because it takes a long time to heat the ocean and a long time to melt ice. But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years. And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
Scientists can analyze the gases trapped in ice to reconstruct with high accuracy what climate was like in prehistory, but that record only goes back 800,000 years. It is trickier to estimate carbon dioxide levels before then, but in 2009, one research team reported finding evidence of carbon dioxide levels ranging between 365 and 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago. They based their finding on the analysis of carbon isotopes present in compounds made by tiny marine phytoplankton preserved in ancient ocean sediments.
That estimate made Earth’s last experience of 400 ppm a much more recent event than scientists have commonly thought. There has been broader consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than today’s but not for tens of millions of years. The assertion that Earth passed the 400 ppm mark a mere 4.5 million years ago has been supported by other analyses, many of which also concluded that the temperatures at that time were higher than previously estimated. These studies suggest that the traditional way scientists currently rate Earth’s long-term sensitivity to extra doses of CO2 might not sufficiently take into account the slower effects of climate change on the sunlight-absorbing properties of the planet, such as ice sheet melt and changes in plant cover on land.
What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. Several prominent questions remain to be answered, though, before accurate scenarios can be created. The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.
“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered planet, as the ocean gradually warms up in response to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus.
– Robert Monroe
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mišo Alkalaj says:
May 2, 2013 at 1:15 am
From the “we exclude data which aren’t remotely connected with real world background CO2 levels”:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Sorry, but while I admire the tremendous amount of work that the late Ernst Beck has done, there are too many problems with the historical data…
Main problems with the historical data:
– Many samples were taken over land near huge sources and sinks. One can find levels between 250 and 600 ppmv within one day in a semi-rural setting when there is inversion at night and a sunny day for photosynthesis.
– The late Beck didn’t do any quality control. The good, the bad and the ugly were simply averaged: data from one side of the world at 400 ppmv with 200 ppmv from the other side, in the same year. Some methods had an accuracy not better than +/- 150 ppmv…
– The 1942 “peak” is not visible in any other proxy (including stomata data), neither in ice cores. The “peak” is the equivalent of burning 1/3rd of all vegetation on earth in 7 years and growing it again in the same time span. There are no known sources and especially no sinks which can have done that.
– Samples taken over the oceans or coastal with wind from the ocean show values around the ice core data for the same age. Todays stations are mainly in such places or deserts or on the South Pole, and show minimal contamination.
@ur momisugly jc re: 2148, 5/1/13 — WAY —- TO — GO! Thunderously well done. A tour de force.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 11:44 am
….Firstly, I talked about changes to volcanism. And volcanism varies. Phil talked about hydrothermal vents. The difference is profound. Wicki says this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
Submarine volcanoes are underwater fissures in the Earth’s surface from which magma can erupt. They are estimated to account for 75% of annual magma output. The vast majority are located near areas of tectonic plate movement, known as ocean ridges…..
Richard, I have the impression that submarine volcanoes are still vastly underestimated. The 75% of magma output would almost make a fair distribution about what is continental surface and oceans. However the ocean crust is thinner then the continental crust, therefore I would expect submarine volcanoes to be disproportionally large represented, and not about proportional to the surface.
See also:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
“The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.”
“The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.”
Lars P.:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at May 2, 2013 at 1:58 pm.
You may be right that undersea volcanism is greatly underestimated. Whether or not that is true, undersea volcanism is certainly greater than observed volcanism.
Importantly, in the context of the putative effect of undersea volcanism on sulphur ions in the ocean, the suggestion of Phil. is plain daft. He suggests that because the sulphur from black smokers is deposited as insoluble solid salts then the same is true for volcanic sulphur. This suggestion is plain daft and he only provides it as an example of his usual trolling disinformation.
Cooling lava releases sulphur at much cooler temperatures than black smokers and, therefore, lava does release sulphate ions which are carried in the ocean water: indeed, as I said, this is observed. And we would not exist if it were not so.
Sulphur is sequestered by rocks (this is why sulphurous acid rain is so damaging to e.g. limestone). It is returned to the atmosphere by plate tectonics via emissions from volcanism. Thus, the sulphur cycle is sustained, and without it all life on land would die. Phytoplankton sequester sulphur ions from the oceans and emit it as DMS (dimethlsulphide and related compounds) which is an insoluble gas so it rises to the air and breaks down to form sulphur oxides (SOx) which are washed from the air by rain. All life on land would die without the sulphur provided to the land by rain.
If Phil. were right then the sulphur cycle would almost cease because only volcanism above the oceans would be available to sustain it.
The trouble with warmunists is that they will ignore any reality to promote their agenda.
Please note that I am not saying the volcanic hypothesis is right. I am pointing out that it is one possible explanation for a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The possibility of this explanation alone invalidates the “what else could have done it?” and the ‘mass balance’ arguments as evidence that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the major cause of the rise.
Richard
Richard
A couple of years ago I was attending a dinner at Cambridge university and sat next to a volcanologist. They told me that the latest thinking was that there were 10000 times more underwater volcanoes than previously thought but there was little active research being carried out on the subject
The context of this information was that the person who told me this was sincere but whether or not it is correct is another matter and if it is what that as regards It’s effect on the climate is something the appropriate experts on the subject need to debate.
Tonyb
@Janice Moore says:
May 2, 2013 at 12:03 pm
It is good to see people responding to these issues.
People seem to have become habituated to “trolls” and simply accept that this is just part of the rough and tumble of life and/or this issue. And to a degree that is true.
There will always be some who deliberately annoy – or perhaps most people will at some time lapse into gamesmanship or disruption for the sake of it, and on occasion be loathe to acknowledge that they have been wrong, or that someone has “bested” them in an argument.
But there is a different level to this as well.
Not just on this issue but any there are those who deliberately, strategically, attempt to subvert intelligent exchange of information and ideas, and therefore try to sabotage intelligence itself.
And render people incapable of properly grasping what is occurring in the world.
When this done in service of a particular strategic aim that effects those very people, this is a gross betrayal of human trust.
This is what is happening here. These are no idle, personal interactions. This is not about the right to hold opinions or the foibles of people that inevitably are part of any mix.
These people are deliberate. They have an agenda. Their prosecution of that agenda is done in a way that is anathema to intelligence and civilized behaviour.
They are FULLY aware of that. That is EXACTLY why they do it. They are trying GET SOMETHING by destroying the capacity for others to judge whether what they want should happen.
In this case, what they want, they are fully aware will cause destruction and in fact kill.
This is evil.
What really worries me about this sort of ‘Pliocenic logic’ is that the CAGWers (pronounced See Ay Gee Dubyas) automatically assume that mankind doesn’t have it in its power to rapidly increase the rate of global sequestration should we figure out over the next few decades or more that yes, there is too much warming developing. Their logic tells us on the one hand that the one thing mankind does best is pour too much CO2 into the atmosphere, but on the other hand the ONLY thing we can do in response (in between incessant hand wringing) is to, in effect, all make a rapid goose step backwards and, in addition, there is no hope for the currently starving billions on this planet – they are just fortunate to be our future role models.
On the contrary, I assert the Pliocene and the planet’s ‘natural recovery’ from it tells us exactly what we would need to do. As an Aussie I can confidently assert that it is quite easy to both dig up and transport across the oceans mind boggling tonnages of finely divided iron ore. We already have plenty of scrap iron. All we need to do is divert a certain amount of that ore directly into the surfaces of the oceans. This would vastly stimulate the oceanic ‘standing crop’ crop of cyanobacteria (aka approx. 47% of the planets living biomass), sequester vast amounts of CO2, put a significant fraction of that into the oceans’ depths via the settling flux, reverse acidification and synchronously massively stimulate the world’s fisheries (thereby feeding the currently starving billions more effectively). At the same time, the increased flux of biotic cloud nuclei would also enhance the planetary albedo and hence rate of cooling. Bingo!
Now why is that sort of thing proscribed by the CAGWers? Where does it say that sackcloth and ashes and starvation must be the compulsory responses to CAGW? Is it a ‘religion thang’?
Steve Short:
At May 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm you suggest iron seeding as a geoengineering solution to AGW.
There is a safer and cheaper possible method. One only has to stop removing sulphur from aviation fuel used on long-haul flights over the oceans. The resulting emitted SOx would seed cirrus clouds to increase albedo with resulting reduction to solar heating of the Earth’s surface.
This would be safer because there is no direct disturbance of the biosphere and because the SOx washes out of the air in days so the activity could be very rapidly stopped in the unlikely event of observed adverse effects. It would be cheaper because – at present – removing the sulphur from aviation fuel has costs.
In an article on WUWT I suggested funding research of this cloud forming activity as an option for politicians wishing to retreat from policies based on (or justified by) AGW.
Importantly, nothing would need to be done (including no geoengineering, no windfarms, no Carbon Taxes, no etc.) in response to AGW unless and until problems from AGW were detected. In that unlikely event then the ‘aviation fuel’ geoengineering could provide an immediate correction to AGW while other actions were considered.
Unfortunately, many readers failed to understand the political ploy which I was suggesting and thought I was advocating the geoengineering. I have not been invited to provide a WUWT Guest Article since.
My article suggesting the political ploy is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/stopping-climate-change/
Richard
Richard Courtney:
Conversely, I would note that not removing sulfur from the heavy fuel oil use to run the world’s ships would possibly achieve comparable results, particularly in seeding the all important low altitude cumulus. My father served in the Pacific theatre in WWI and personally showed me his photos of long lines of clouds associated with the movements of large US and Australian/NZ fleets of ships. Very impressive. I’d hazard a guess that more commercial shipping crosses the world’s oceans than do planes cross the skies.
Secondly, the oceanic seeding with iron ore stimulates the cyanobacteria (which abstract dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate) thereby reducing the tendency to acidification with increasing CO2. Thirdly it would also be restorative of the world’s fisheries – already showing signs of a significant depletion and a reducing food source, especially for the world’s poor. This strategy supports the Third World and thus should attract their support.
I contend oceanic iron seeding would also be safe because the FexOy precipitates/settles out of the water in days so the ocean seeding activity could also be very rapidly stopped in the unlikely event of observed adverse effects. This is proven by the well-studied fact that oceanic cyanobacteria blooms and dies after episodes of major wind-driven dust fallout from the continents – especially deserts and volcanic areas like the Andes.
Finally, seeding high altitude cirrus still doesn’t sequester CO2 if that should truly and honestly prove, in the goodness of time, to really be the core issue claimed.
So, let’s not demonize the word ‘geoengineering’ ahead of time without good cause. The debasement and demonization of our language is a favored Orwellian tactic of the warmists which we should resist the tendency to emulate.
Sorry, typo – WWII not WWI.
Steve Short:
I did not “demonize” anything. I ask you to read my article which I linked.
I copy the link to here for your convenience
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/stopping-climate-change/
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Please note that I am not saying the volcanic hypothesis is right. I am pointing out that it is one possible explanation for a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The possibility of this explanation alone invalidates the “what else could have done it?” and the ‘mass balance’ arguments as evidence that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the major cause of the rise.
While a lot is unknown of several cycles in the oceans, the volcanic path is refuted by several observations:
– Most important in the cycle is sulphate, which is formed from oxydation of H2S or SO2 from undersea volcanoes and/or above ground volcanoes (and human emissions of high sulphur coal). This sulphate reduces the pH quite importantly. But there are no signs of an increase in sulphates in the oceans.
– The increase in the atmosphere follows human emissions at an incredible fixed rate (R^2: 0.9988). Any natural cause should do the same, but in general, natural causes are known for their high variability… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
– In the past decades, DIC is increasing everywhere in the oceans surfaces. If acidification was at work, DIC would decrease, not increase. This shows that the net CO2 flow is from atmosphere to ocean surface, not reverse.
– The 13C/12C ratio of the deep oceans (0-1 per mil) is higher than of the atmosphere (at -8 per mil). The 13C/12C ratio of the ocean surface is much higher than of the atmosphere (1-5 per mil). Any substantial release of extra CO2 from the oceans would INcrease the 13/12C ratio in the atmosphere, even taking into account the isotopic differentiation at the water-air border. But we see an ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio, in lockstep with human emissions.
Last but not least, the mass balance argument:
Humans emit some 8 GtC/year as CO2 (about 4 ppmv) directly into the atmosphere. Any substantial net release from the oceans adds to these 8 GtC/year. But the net increase in the atmosphere is only halve of the 8 GtC. If the oceans were a net source, then another reservoir must be a net sink for the difference. The only fast net sink is vegetation. But the net sink by vegetation can be calculated from the oxygen use or production. That shows that vegetation is a net sink for not more than 1 GtC/yr (0.5 ppmv/yr). Thus the oceans also are a net sink for CO2, not a net source, because other CO2 sinks like rock weathering are much too slow. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
In figures:
If x = extra emissions from ocean acidification then the mass balance is as follows:
increase in atmosphere = emissions + x + other natural sources – natural sinks
4 GtC/yr = 8 GtC/yr + x + other natural sources – natural sinks
or
x + other natural sources – natural sinks = -4 GtC/yr
Thus nature is a net sink of 4 GtC/yr (+/- 2 GtC/yr natural variability), whatever x may be.
Wherever the 4 GtC (2 ppmv) difference from the mass balance might be captured, nature as a whole is a net sink of CO2, not a source, including all direct or incirect extra sources from volcanoes or ocean acidification. And the oceans are net sinks as CO2 in average is going from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At May 3, 2013 at 5:00 am you say
I assume that if you knew of such “observations” then you would have cited them.
Instead, you have cited “observations” which do not refute it.
You say
True. The data are too space over time and space for such an increase to be observed with required accuracy and precision.
Lack of ability to observe is not an “observation” which refutes anything.
You say
That is not “observations”: it is two arguments by assertion.
The emissions and the CO2 rise do correlate because both are rising. This cannot be logically inferred to indicate that either one “follows” the other. Please state the r^2 for the detrended data adjusted for autocorrelation.
And the adjustment of the system to an altered equilibrium could be a “natural cause” and would also induce the “incredibly fixed rate” of rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
You say
No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293226
You say
Again, the “ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio” is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. The anthropogenic emission is to the air and the net flux is from the air to the ocean surface. I again refer you to my previous explanations in this thread e.g. in the link I provide in this post.
You say
Whatever the merits of the ‘mass balance argument” it is not relevant to the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. This hypothesis considers redistributions of carbon in the total system in response to an altered equilibrium of the system. The anthropogenic carbon is such a small addition to the carbon in the total system that it is irrelevant. Indeed, this is why the hypothesis predicts the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the anthropogenic emission exists. Again, I refer you to my previous explanations in this thread e.g. in the link I provide in this post.
Richard
Ferdinand:
OOPS! I made misprint!
I intended to write
“True. The data are too sparce over time and space for such an increase to be observed with required accuracy and precision.”
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Importantly, in the context of the putative effect of undersea volcanism on sulphur ions in the ocean, the suggestion of Phil. is plain daft. He suggests that because the sulphur from black smokers is deposited as insoluble solid salts then the same is true for volcanic sulphur.
No I did not make such a suggestion, that is a clear fabrication by you. I quite clearly stated before ever mentioning sulphide emissions that the most important sulphur containing ion was sulphate but that sulphate was one of the constant composition ions in the oceans so that your proposed mechanism which required variable SO4– and thereby a change in pH could not work because it is contrary to observations. I also gave references (something you notably fail to do in support of your argument), clearly you didn’t take the trouble to read them. Not that I expected you to since you are so convinced of your position that the last thing you need is evidence against it, hopefully others here will read the references and see the error of your ways.
This suggestion is plain daft and he only provides it as an example of his usual trolling disinformation.
Since I made no such suggestion it says nothing about me or my posts, it does provides an example of your dissembling ways however.
Cooling lava releases sulphur at much cooler temperatures than black smokers and, therefore, lava does release sulphate ions which are carried in the ocean water: indeed, as I said, this is observed. And we would not exist if it were not so.
Sulphur is sequestered by rocks (this is why sulphurous acid rain is so damaging to e.g. limestone). It is returned to the atmosphere by plate tectonics via emissions from volcanism. Thus, the sulphur cycle is sustained, and without it all life on land would die. Phytoplankton sequester sulphur ions from the oceans and emit it as DMS (dimethlsulphide and related compounds) which is an insoluble gas so it rises to the air and breaks down to form sulphur oxides (SOx) which are washed from the air by rain. All life on land would die without the sulphur provided to the land by rain.
If Phil. were right then the sulphur cycle would almost cease because only volcanism above the oceans would be available to sustain it.
No, the observation is that the concentration of sulphate in the ocean is constant and that is a result of sinks and sources being balanced which leaves no room for your hypothesis of pH change due to variation in sulphate due to undersea volcanoes!
Direct observations of erupting submarine volcanoes show emissions of elemental sulphur rather than sulphate, for example:
“Unlike volcanic plumes on land, however, the ‘clouds’ are not formed of steam but instead are composed of tiny dispersed droplets of molten sulfur, or brimstone, an ancient name for sulfur. The bubbles are filled with CO2, all that remains of the magmatic gas after the original water and sulfur have condensed to liquid (water) or solid (sulfur) phases. The lava fragments provide hints of what is happening in the vent, behind the curtain of sulfur clouds.”
http://nwrota2009.blogspot.com/2009/04/fire-and-brimstone.html
The trouble with warmunists is that they will ignore any reality to promote their agenda.
The trouble with you, Richard, is that you ignore reality to promote your agenda, this being a perfect example.
Please note that I am not saying the volcanic hypothesis is right. I am pointing out that it is one possible explanation for a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The possibility of this explanation alone invalidates the “what else could have done it?” and the ‘mass balance’ arguments as evidence that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the major cause of the rise.
The scientific evidence shows that this is an impossible explanation and therefore it is rejected, it invalidates nothing. Your being able to dream up hypotheses which are at variance with the facts is an irrelevancy. You thought of something, didn’t wonder why scientists hadn’t proposed it already, didn’t examine the facts to see if it was possible, well it doesn’t fit with the facts so move on. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing because humans are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be removed by natural sinks.
Friends:
I read the recent long and silly post from Phil. Thus, I have saved anybody wasting time reading it in hope of edification. Nobody need bother.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 2:50 am
Steve Short:
At May 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm you suggest iron seeding as a geoengineering solution to AGW.
There is a safer and cheaper possible method. One only has to stop removing sulphur from aviation fuel used on long-haul flights over the oceans. The resulting emitted SOx would seed cirrus clouds to increase albedo with resulting reduction to solar heating of the Earth’s surface.
It is not clear that seeding of cirrus would have the effect you suggest, it could go either way. See NASA, “The greenhouse effect is weak for low altitude clouds, so their albedo effect dominates and they cool the Earth’s climate. In contrast, cold high altitude cirrus clouds may either cool or warm the climate. They have a strong greenhouse effect, which may outweigh their albedo effect losses.”
This would be safer because there is no direct disturbance of the biosphere and because the SOx washes out of the air in days so the activity could be very rapidly stopped in the unlikely event of observed adverse effects. It would be cheaper because – at present – removing the sulphur from aviation fuel has costs.
And benefits, reduced corrosion, reduced particulate emissions on takeoff, improved combustion efficiency, etc.
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 7:39 am
Friends:
I read the recent long and silly post from Phil. Thus, I have saved anybody wasting time reading it in hope of edification. Nobody need bother.
Translation, please don’t read the rebuttal of my post or read any of the evidence of the science which rejects my hypothesis, or see that in my post I completely misrepresented what Phil. said.
As Ferdinand said: “Richard, you are a master in diverting the attention from the main points in the discussion towards irrelevant details.” To which I would add ‘avoiding answering any scientific rebuttal of his posts’.
Friends:
I can remove something unpleasant from the bottom of my shoe, but I prefer to take care where I put my feet. That way I don’t need to interact with such unpleasant material.
Similarly, I could respond to the troll’s attempts to goad me into giving publicity to his falsehoods. I don’t need to interact with such unpleasant material, and I won’t.
Just so everybody knows.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 8:24 am
Similarly, I could respond to the troll’s attempts to goad me into giving publicity to his falsehoods. I don’t need to interact with such unpleasant material, and I won’t.
Your choice, but there are no falsehoods by me there, perhaps you are embarrassed about yours being exposed?
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At May 3, 2013 at 5:00 am you say
“there are no signs of an increase in sulphates in the oceans.”
True. The data are too space over time and space for such an increase to be observed with required accuracy and precision.
And yet you quoted the concentration of sulphate with impressive precision as: 2.649 mg/L
Your assertion of lack of precision and accuracy needs support, the reference I gave says you’re wrong.
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf
No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293226
Given the observation that SO4– is not changing there will be no associated change in DIC.
You say
“Last but not least, the mass balance argument:”
Whatever the merits of the ‘mass balance argument” it is not relevant to the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. This hypothesis considers redistributions of carbon in the total system in response to an altered equilibrium of the system. The anthropogenic carbon is such a small addition to the carbon in the total system that it is irrelevant. Indeed, this is why the hypothesis predicts the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the anthropogenic emission exists. Again, I refer you to my previous explanations in this thread e.g. in the link I provide in this post.
The increase in anthropogenic carbon is ~double the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, hardly irrelevant!
@ur momisugly Phil.
You will not answer the question. It is against your instinct to be frank, regardless of implication, since you do not want to be fully visible at any time or any circumstance.
You have read my comments. You know the actual results of your agenda and the way you seek to insinuate it. There is no sanctity based on professed ignorance for you.
Whether you like it or not, you are SEEN. And KNOWN.
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
I assume that if you knew of such “observations” then you would have cited them.
Instead, you have cited “observations” which do not refute it.
The 13C/12C ratio of all ocean waters, deep and surface all show (much) higher values than of the atmosphere. Any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we see a steady decline:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
That alone is sufficient to refute every theory that results in substantial net releases from the oceans.
Such a decline was never seen in ice cores or tree carbon over any time frame for millions of years.
No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am
Your explanation was and is in contradiction with the chemical equilibria of seawater: either there is acidification and CO2 is released into the atmosphere and DIC decreases in seawater, or there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is absorbed by the oceans surfaces, which increases DIC and lowers the pH of seawater. If both are happening at the same time, then DIC decides which one is the most important.
Some 3 million samples of seawater show an increase in DIC everywhere in all oceans, including at the upwelling places of deep ocean waters.
Again, the “ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio” is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. The anthropogenic emission is to the air and the net flux is from the air to the ocean surface.
Not possible: the effect of an exogenic setpoint change by changing the ocean pH will decrease DIC and increase CO2 in the atmosphere, and the increase in the atmosphere would be higher than the emissions alone.
But, back to basics: to increase the setpoint of the water-air equilibrium, an acidification of the oceans will decrease DIC. At some point, human emissions increase CO2 in the atmosphere above the new equilibrium and start to increase DIC. Since DIC measurements were taken in series from around 1984, these show an increase over time. That means that at least since 1984, all increase in the atmosphere is not from the oceans. That is about halve the total increase since the industrial revolution.
Moreover, the pCO2 measurements taken since the International Geophysical Year (1957) show a net uptake of CO2 by the oceans:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6238&page=20
That means that near all increase in the atmosphere measured since Mauna Loa is not from ocean acidification, but reverse.
While there were DIC measurements taken too, these are not published.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 3, 2013 at 9:53 am
richardscourtney says:
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 am
“I assume that if you knew of such “observations” then you would have cited them.
Instead, you have cited “observations” which do not refute it.”
“No! The increase to DIC is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis.
I have repeatedly explained this; e.g. at May 1, 2013 at 3:06 am”
Your explanation was and is in contradiction with the chemical equilibria of seawater: either there is acidification and CO2 is released into the atmosphere and DIC decreases in seawater, or there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which is absorbed by the oceans surfaces, which increases DIC and lowers the pH of seawater. If both are happening at the same time, then DIC decides which one is the most important.
Some 3 million samples of seawater show an increase in DIC everywhere in all oceans, including at the upwelling places of deep ocean waters.
“Again, the “ever increasing DEcrease in 13/12C ratio” is an expected effect of the volcanic sulphur hypothesis. The anthropogenic emission is to the air and the net flux is from the air to the ocean surface.”
Not possible: the effect of an exogenic setpoint change by changing the ocean pH will decrease DIC and increase CO2 in the atmosphere, and the increase in the atmosphere would be higher than the emissions alone.
But, back to basics: to increase the setpoint of the water-air equilibrium, an acidification of the oceans will decrease DIC. At some point, human emissions increase CO2 in the atmosphere above the new equilibrium and start to increase DIC. Since DIC measurements were taken in series from around 1984, these show an increase over time. That means that at least since 1984, all increase in the atmosphere is not from the oceans. That is about halve the total increase since the industrial revolution.
Moreover, the pCO2 measurements taken since the International Geophysical Year (1957) show a net uptake of CO2 by the oceans:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6238&page=20
That means that near all increase in the atmosphere measured since Mauna Loa is not from ocean acidification, but reverse.
While there were DIC measurements taken too, these are not published.
You’re probably aware of it Ferdinand but here is a paper with DIC measurements off Hawaii.
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/lab/dkarl/1998MarChem60-33-47.pdf
It shows an increase in DIC consistent with the measured increase in pCO2.
Phil. says:
May 3, 2013 at 1:13 pm
You’re probably aware of it Ferdinand but here is a paper with DIC measurements off Hawaii.
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/lab/dkarl/1998MarChem60-33-47.pdf
It shows an increase in DIC consistent with the measured increase in pCO2.
I was aware of the DIC figures in it, as that was reported in some conference, together with the BATS (Bermuda) continuous series. Unfortunately not anymore online. The BATS series started in 1984, a few years before Hawaii. I was searching for earlier measurements since the International Geophysical Year (1957) when a lot of measurements were taken, often sustained in following years, but only pCO2 data are published, which show a general, increasing flux from the atmosphere into the oceans.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at May 3, 2013 at 9:53 am.
PLEASE READ THE POST YOU CLAIM TO BE ANSWERING.
You have ignored everything I wrote. For example, I have stated that the net flux is expected to be from the atmosphere to the ocean.
I HAVE SAID THAT FOUR TIMES NOW.
But you argue that the net flux is from the atmosphere to the ocean as though that somehow disputes what I have said. IT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY.
Your argument about DIC is false. The carbonate buffer does not maintain pH balance when there is an input of SO4.
“Some 3 million samples of seawater” over 50 years is a completely inadequate sample of the oceans over 50 years. Assume 300 samples a per year (i.e. less than one a day) and you only have 200 sample points for the entire ocean coverage of the world. And most of those are not consistent because they are taken from ships at different places.
SO4 varies in the oceans.
Typically it is said to be 2.649 mg/L
In the Eastern Mediterranean 2.950 mg/L
In the Arabian Gulf at Kuwait 3.200 mg/L
3 million samples sounds a lot until one recognises that the oceans are big, the sample points move, there 365 days in a year, and the samples have been obtained over 50 years.
The data is just not available to determine how the alkalinity has varied as a result of sulphur variation. Especially when ocean pH varies greatly at each place over hours .
For example this from Scripps
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1234
Any sulphur from undersea volcanism would reach the surface layer in upwellings.
But you and the troll claim the pH has not varied. The data does NOT show that.
Your argument says these measured effects are “not possible”.
Sorry, Ferdinand, they happen. They are observed, and they are measured.
Richard