Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results.
Guest essay by Gösta Pettersson
The Keeling curve establishes that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has shown a steady long-term increase since 1958. Proponents of the antropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis have attributed the increasing carbon dioxide level to human activities such as combustion of fossil fuels and land-use changes. Opponents of the AGW hypothesis have argued that this would require that the turnover time for atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 100 years, which is inconsistent with a multitude of experimental studies indicating that the turnover time is of the order of 10 years.
Since its constitution in 1988, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has disregarded the empirically determined turnover times, claiming that they lack bearing on the rate at which anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the atmosphere. Instead, the fourth IPCC assessment report argues that the removal of carbon dioxide emissions is adequately described by the ‘Bern model‘, a carbon cycle model designed by prominent climatologists at the Bern University. The Bern model is based on the presumption that the increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide derive exclusively from anthropogenic emissions. Tuned to fit the Keeling curve, the model prescribes that the relaxation of an emission pulse of carbon dioxide is multiphasic with slow components reflecting slow transfer of carbon dioxide from the oceanic surface to the deep-sea regions. The problem is that empirical observations tell us an entirely different story.
The nuclear weapon tests in the early 1960s have initiated a scientifically ideal tracer experiment describing the kinetics of removal of an excess of airborne carbon dioxide. When the atmospheric bomb tests ceased in 1963, they had raised the air level of C14-carbon dioxide to almost twice its original background value. The relaxation of this pulse of excess C14-carbon dioxide has now been monitored for fifty years. Representative results providing direct experimental records of more than 95% of the relaxation process are shown in Fig.1.
Figure 1. Relaxation of the excess of airborne C14-carbon dioxide produced by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons before the tests ceased in 1963
The IPCC has disregarded the bombtest data in Fig. 1 (which refer to the C14/C12 ratio), arguing that “an atmospheric perturbation in the isotopic ratio disappears much faster than the perturbation in the number of C14 atoms”. That argument cannot be followed and certainly is incorrect. Fig. 2 shows the data in Fig. 1 after rescaling and correction for the minor dilution effects caused by the increased atmospheric concentration of C12-carbon dioxide during the examined period of time.
Figure 2. The bombtest curve. Experimentally observed relaxation of C14-carbon dioxide (black) compared with model descriptions of the process.
The resulting series of experimental points (black data i Fig. 2) describes the disappearance of “the perturbation in the number of C14 atoms”, is almost indistinguishable from the data in Fig. 1, and will be referred to as the ‘bombtest curve’.
To draw attention to the bombtest curve and its important implications, I have made public a trilogy of strict reaction kinetic analyses addressing the controversial views expressed on the interpretation of the Keeling curve by proponents and opponents of the AGW hypothesis.
(Note: links to all three papers are below also)
Paper 1 in the trilogy clarifies that
a. The bombtest curve provides an empirical record of more than 95% of the relaxation of airborne C14-carbon dioxide. Since kinetic carbon isotope effects are small, the bombtest curve can be taken to be representative for the relaxation of emission pulses of carbon dioxide in general.
b. The relaxation process conforms to a monoexponential relationship (red curve in Fig. 2) and hence can be described in terms of a single relaxation time (turnover time). There is no kinetically valid reason to disregard reported experimental estimates (5–14 years) of this relaxation time.
c. The exponential character of the relaxation implies that the rate of removal of C14 has been proportional to the amount of C14. This means that the observed 95% of the relaxation process have been governed by the atmospheric concentration of C14-carbon dioxide according to the law of mass action, without any detectable contributions from slow oceanic events.
d. The Bern model prescriptions (blue curve in Fig. 2) are inconsistent with the observations that have been made, and gravely underestimate both the rate and the extent of removal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. On basis of the Bern model predictions, the IPCC states that it takes a few hundreds of years before the first 80% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the air. The bombtest curve shows that it takes less than 25 years.
Paper 2 in the trilogy uses the kinetic relationships derived from the bombtest curve to calculate how much the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been affected by emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide since 1850. The results show that only half of the Keeling curve’s longterm trend towards increased carbon dioxide levels originates from anthropogenic emissions.
The Bern model and other carbon cycle models tuned to fit the Keeling curve are routinely used by climate modellers to obtain input estimates of future carbon dioxide levels for postulated emissions scenarios. Paper 2 shows that estimates thus obtained exaggerate man-made contributions to future carbon dioxide levels (and consequent global temperatures) by factors of 3–14 for representative emission scenarios and time periods extending to year 2100 or longer. For empirically supported parameter values, the climate model projections actually provide evidence that global warming due to emissions of fossil carbon dioxide will remain within acceptable limits.
Paper 3 in the trilogy draws attention to the fact that hot water holds less dissolved carbon dioxide than cold water. This means that global warming during the 2000th century by necessity has led to a thermal out-gassing of carbon dioxide from the hydrosphere. Using a kinetic air-ocean model, the strength of this thermal effect can be estimated by analysis of the temperature dependence of the multiannual fluctuations of the Keeling curve and be described in terms of the activation energy for the out-gassing process.
For the empirically estimated parameter values obtained according to Paper 1 and Paper 3, the model shows that thermal out-gassing and anthropogenic emissions have provided approximately equal contributions to the increasing carbon dioxide levels over the examined period 1850–2010. During the last two decades, contributions from thermal out-gassing have been almost 40% larger than those from anthropogenic emissions. This is illustrated by the model data in Fig. 3, which also indicate that the Keeling curve can be quantitatively accounted for in terms of the combined effects of thermal out-gassing and anthropogenic emissions.
Figure 3. Variation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, as indicated by empirical data (green) and by the model described in Paper 3 (red). Blue and black curves show the contributions provided by thermal out-gassing and emissions, respectively.
The results in Fig. 3 call for a drastic revision of the carbon cycle budget presented by the IPCC. In particular, the extensively discussed ‘missing sink’ (called ‘residual terrestrial sink´ in the fourth IPCC report) can be identified as the hydrosphere; the amount of emissions taken up by the oceans has been gravely underestimated by the IPCC due to neglect of thermal out-gassing. Furthermore, the strength of the thermal out-gassing effect places climate modellers in the delicate situation that they have to know what the future temperatures will be before they can predict them by consideration of the greenhouse effect caused by future carbon dioxide levels.
By supporting the Bern model and similar carbon cycle models, the IPCC and climate modellers have taken the stand that the Keeling curve can be presumed to reflect only anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The results in Paper 1–3 show that this presumption is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results that have a direct bearing on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As long as climate modellers continue to disregard the available empirical information on thermal out-gassing and on the relaxation kinetics of airborne carbon dioxide, their model predictions will remain too biased to provide any inferences of significant scientific or political interest.
References:
Climate Change 2007: IPCC Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis section 10.4 – Changes Associated with Biogeochemical Feedbacks and Ocean Acidification
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4.html
Climate Change 2007: IPCC Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis section 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 15, NO. 4, PAGES 891–907, DECEMBER 2001 Joos et al. Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios
ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/users/Giorgio.Guariso/papers/joos01gbc[1]-1.pdf
Click below for a free download of the three papers referenced in the essay as PDF files.
Paper 1 Relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide
Paper 2 Anthropogenic contributions to the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide during the industrial era
Paper 3 Temperature effects on the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
================================================================
Gösta Pettersson is a retired professor in biochemistry at the University of Lund (Sweden) and a previous editor of the European Journal of Biochemistry as an expert on reaction kinetics and mathematical modelling. My scientific reasearch has focused on the fixation of carbon dioxide by plants, which has made me familiar with the carbon cycle research carried out by climatologists and others.
Bart says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm
CO2 rich waters are rising all the time. If you have a temperature rise, then the upper layers outgas. So, you reach a new atmospheric equilibrium. So far, so good, and Ferdinand et al. have no problem with this.
But now, those waters, whose CO2 has been depleted, downwell, and new CO2 rich waters surface. These then outgas, too. And the process repeats.
What you describe is the Thermohaline Circulation, THC, which is a continuous stream of ocean waters upwelling near the Pacific quator and downwelling in the NE Atlantic.
The continuous upwelling does induce a continuous inflow of CO2 from near the equator and gives a continuous downwelling of CO2 near the poles. When both CO2 fluxes are in equilibrium, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere get flat. If there is a disequilibrium, the levels go up or down. So far so good.
This produces a pumping action into the atmosphere. The rate of change of CO2 into the atmosphere is thus a continuous rate, which is temperature dependent, and can at least be approximated as an affine function of temperature
Here you go wrong by supposing that an increase in temperature (let is assume as well at the upwelling as at the downwelling area’s) permanently increases the inflow of CO2. You don’t take into account that the extra inflow (and reduced outflow) increases the CO2 level in the atmosphere and that increased CO2 level affects the inflows and outflows.
Any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (whatever the cause) reduces the inflow of CO2 from the oceans and increases the outflow of CO2 into the oceans.
That happens until the previous (dis)equilibrium in inflows and outflows is restored. That is with an increase of 16 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere for 1 K increase in temperature.
Thus it is impossible that the inflow from the oceans or the outflow into the oceans remains constant for a sustained increase in temperature.
“Thus the variability in the increase rate of CO2 in fact is a variability in sink rate, not in source rate.”
Again with the discredited mass balance argument. Stop it.
I have avoided the mass balance argument as far as possible. But any substantial increase of the natural carbon cycle would be noticed in one or more observations.
– that is not the case for the residence time: no shortening observed.
– that goes the wrong way for the d13C level in the atmosphere if the oceans were the source.
– that is proven wrong for the biosphere, which is a net CO2 absorber.
There simply is no natural source for the increase of CO2 that doesn’t violate one or more observations.
The only source that matches all observations is the continuous release of extra CO2 by humans.
Michael Moon says: @ur momisugly July 2, 2013 at 8:03 am
….Secondly, travelling about in forested areas, this 54-year-old notices that the vegetation is lush, really lush, far more than before. \
What does it all mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The trees are no longer starving for CO2.
“…global warming during the 2000th century…”
Goodness, I had no idea the projections went this far. This is getting way out of hand. (/sarc)
Gail Combs says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm
An increase in temperature leads to an increase in the water cycle. Graphic map: US precipitation trends 1900 to present
Should have been more specific: in general there will be more precipitation for increased temperatures, but in the specific case of an El Niño, which increases worldwide temperatures, large parts of the Amazone forests are dried out and the total biosphere during such a year (1998) is a net source of CO2… But as you know, even the desserts are greening over the years along the borders…
“It’s all in reverse now though (since about 2000) but we need to wait some time before the data goes into reverse too.”
No need to wait , just look at d/dt(CO2), it’s already in a ‘plateau’ just like temperature, Unlike emissions:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259
Gösta Pettersson has worked out an accurate exponential impulse response for the system, I suppose we should now deconvolve the Keeling curve with that and see what it looks like. I’ll see if I can get that together.
“Gösta Pettersson has worked out an accurate exponential impulse response for the system,”
nope, she just calculated the dilution ratio of a tracer.
dbstealey says: July 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm
“Nick Stokes is wrong once again. There is not “a lot of CO2?; it is measured in parts per million.”
[snip]
So what does all that mean? The 1360 Gton CO2 we have added generates about 1.6 W/m2 in radiative forcing. Not such a lot either, but it accumulates. Both the heat and the CO2 itself.
Re: jkanders
The Bern formula does not represent sinks saturating at different times. If 100Gt pulse is injected then the sink represented by the 18.6% would absorb 18.6Gt and then stop absorbing. If a 10Gt pulse was injected then it would stop absorbing at 1.86Gt. In both cases it would about a decade. so what is its saturation point?
In the real world this is true. In the world represented by the Bern formula this is false.
They can both be perfectly wrong, but they can not both be perfectly right. Injecting a pulse of 100Gt would result in 17Gt remaining after five years according to the first formula and 73Gt according to the second. Since 17 does not equal 73 they can not both be right.
Here are 2 scenarios using the Bern model.
Scenario 1:
Year 0: 100Gt pulse of CO2 added to the atmosphere.
Year 5: 73Gt remains
Year 10: 66Gt remains.
Scenario 2:
Year 0: Nothing happens
Year 5: 73Gt pulse of CO2 added to the atmosphere
Year 10: 53Gt remains
In year 5, both scenarios had exactly the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but in year 10 Scenario 2 has 20% less CO2. The reason they differ is because in year 5 of scenario 1 the CO2 is no longer well mixed but in Scenario 2, it is well mixed because it has just been added.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:19 am
I’m not completely sure whether I made a fundamental omission. It’s true I tend to see and explain things simple way, and without magic formulas, so please excuse me I completely avoid and circumvent the famous Henry’s law. But correct me if I’m wrong:
Pressure in unconfined atmosphere (the atmosphere is not in a closed bottle of a Coke) means weight of the gas (for partial pressure the particular fraction of the gas mixture weight) above certain area. 1 at pressure means there’s 1 kilogram of the air above one cm2 area, and as you go up to the mountains, for example, the column of the air above gets shorter, less weight above compresses it and so air has lower density and the atmospheric pressure goes down with the altitude.
The partial pressure of a particular gas in the atmosphere then is the fraction of the mass the particular gas has in the column. For example when there’s say 400 ppmv of the CO2 well mixed in the atmosphere it doesn’t mean its partial pressure is 0.0004 at at the point of the atmosphere where it has 1 at pressure, its partial pressure there is 44.0095[CO2 molar weight]/28.97[air molar weight] x 0.0004 = 0.000607 at.
Simmilar it is for partial pressure of a particular gas dissolved in the water, again, it’s mass fraction in the water is equivalent to the relative mass it has in the water.
For instance according to measurements there’s ~0.001328 g of CO2 solved in surface ocean layer 1cm^2 of 16.6 C sea water which weights ~1.026 grams, therefore the partial pressure of the CO2 in the water is 0.00133/1.026 = ~0.00129 at.
As the 16.6 C is considered being the mean sea surface temperature, we can conclude the mean partial pressure of the CO2 in the sea water is 0.000683 at higher than is the partial pressure of the CO2 in the air above and that the partial pressure of the CO2 in the mean temperature sea water is more than twice as high than the CO2 partial pressure in the air. Therefore the CO2 tends to equilibrium and gets released from the ocean and it will continue to get released up until the partial pressure of the CO2 in the then mean temperature sea water will get same as will be the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere. When it will depend on two factors: A -further rise of the SST and/or B – rise of the amospheric CO2 content from whatever source.
I intentionally omited the question of the reacted CO2 in the water, because even without it taken into account it is quite clear the partial pressure of the CO2 in the mean temperature sea water is way higher than the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere, so the CO2 must still be released from the ocean – all that of course under condition that its mean surface temperature is indeed 16.6 C as NOAA claims. (I don’t really know, because I’ve no means to verify the figure)
clivebest says:
July 2, 2013 at 11:21 am
The biggest mystery is why CO2 levels in the atmosphere are naturally so low. Why have levels been around ~300ppm for the last 3 million years, while higher levels existed in the past ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because the data passed through a filter (ice cores) that clipped the peaks.
Until 1985 most studies of CO2 in gas inclusions in pre-industrial ice indicated that CO2 concentrations (up to 2450 ppm) were higher than the current atmospheric level. After 1985, lower pre-industrial CO2 values were reported, and used as evidence for a recent man-made CO2 increase.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“That happens until the previous (dis)equilibrium in inflows and outflows is restored. That is with an increase of 16 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere for 1 K increase in temperature.”
I think I see now the source of your confusion. It is a temperature dependent pump, in that its output is modulated by temperature. But, temperature is not the only process governing the flow. You are thinking that the upwelling waters have the same CO2 content as the surface waters before they warmed. But, there is no such constraint.
The oceans are not homogenous. This is a transmission flow problem, for a very, very long pipeline subjected to unsteady forcing. When upwelling waters are CO2 enriched beyond the level of surface waters, that CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere when the waters surface, regardless of the prevailing temperature. Increasing surface temperatures merely speeds up the process or, if they decrease enough, bring it to a halt. Right now, bringing it to a halt would require a drop in global temperatures of about 0.25 degC.
TerryS says: July 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm
“The reason they differ is because in year 5 of scenario 1 the CO2 is no longer well mixed “
I think the reason they differ is because in scen 1, by year 5 the sinks are already part-filled. For the ocean, that means a higher [CO2] to try to get CO2 into.
“There are some good skeptical arguments let me list them
1. C02 warms the planet, but not as much as the consensus thinks.
Opps there is just one.”
That little cheap swipe, that is all you got, Mosher? The thosands of professional leeches you are helping to cover for are the joke. Consensus is your team’s nonscientific term: that is your game, not ours.
One thing you give credit to skeptics for, and you still muck that one up. You can’t give credit where is is long due. You insult to all skeptical scientists by your statement and show your true colors.
Anyway, in case you missed it, Venter thoughtfully corrected your childish propaganda:
(There are dozens of skeptic strong points I might add.)
“1.] All other things being equal, CO2 warms the planet. But all other things are not equal. Most sceptics state that.
2.] We don’t understand the behaviour of clouds, aerosols and various other factors influencing the climate. The climate models are pitifully inadequate in these respects.
3.] 73 different Climate models supposedly using the ” same basic physics ” arrive at wildly different values. Averaging those values and calling them model ensemble is pure unadulterated nonsense. An average of a collection of crap remains crap. Model runs are not experiments and model outputs are not data. Mosher should repeat these daily till it sinks into his head.
4.] The honest answer is that we still do not have enough knowledge or information to understand how the climate system works and are barely scratching the surface. So based on the knowledge and the crappy output of the models, it is in no way acceptable to proclaim that the science is settled and advise policymakers to take bad decisions involving billions of dollars and negatively affecting millions of lives.
5.] Not a single instance has been shown by empirical evidence or any other evidence [ except scaremongering stories from rabid CAGW adherents ] that a mild amount of warming causes any harm. The benefits of a moderate amount of warming have been totally ignored.
6.] It is ridiculous to expect people to suffer and die today by making energy expensive with the vague promise that the world could be 0.02 degrees cooler in a 100 years, a claim not matched by any empirical evidence and completely untestable by anyone living today. The proponents can never be held responsible for their actions as they would have long gone. But the suffering today happening to people being denied cheap energy is real and lives are being lost.
Anyone with half a brain reading WUWT knows very well that these points have been enunciated again and again by a lot of sceptics, especially prominent people like Anthony, Willis Eschenbach, Dr.Robert Brown, Lord Moncton etc. For Mosher to blithely state the skeptic position in one line as a certainity, is a willful distortion of the truth….”
Of interest to this discussion from http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“The only source that matches all observations is the continuous release of extra CO2 by humans.”
It does not match this observation. It does not match this one.
Your other observations are equivocal. These are not.
Re: Nick Stokes
In that case lets change it from 100Gt to 100 tonnes. Are you trying to tell me that 27 tonnes of CO2 fills up a carbon sink?
The reason they differ is because in scen 1 the atmosphere over the carbon sink represented by the 18.6% term has less CO2 in it whereas in scen 2 the CO2 is evenly distributed.
Lets try Scenario 3
Year 0: 75Gt added
Year 7: 25Gt added
Year 8: 73Gt remains.
Year 13: 64Gt remains
At year 8 the sinks have 27Gt and 73Gt remains in the atmosphere which is the same as year 5 scenario 1. Therefore year 13 should be the same as year 10 scenario 1 but it isn’t, there is 2Gt less. You might argue that 2Gt isn’t much but I can easily get higher values by using more pulses or varying the timings and quantities.
This is certainly one of the animated and interesting debates in a while. I have no idea who is right. However, from a geologic perspective, the carbon sinks are winning the war. Earth 600 million years ago had ca. 10,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and a lithosphere consisting mainly of volcanic and detrital rocks. Today we have an atmosphere with about 400 ppm CO2 (recently up from something under 200 ppm), and a lithosphere that contains enormous quantities of limestone, limy sediments, shales rich in organic matter, oil and gas deposits, and coal and lignite deposits. Little of the CO2 so sequestered is ever going back into the atmosphere. The low end of the range of CO2 content in atmosphere represents a true danger – diminution and death of plant life. I come down on the side of “carbon emitters” rather than “carbon sinks”.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: @ur momisugly July 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Bart says: @ur momisugly July 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm
CO2 rich waters are rising all the time…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I see that is missing in the Warmists discussions about Global Warming is TIME. Whether it is the flat earth model with no day/night for TSI, CO2 absorption and emission of a photon or in this case Englebeen refuting Bart.
The water Bart is talking about absorbed CO2 800 to 1500 years ago and therefore it’s release of CO2 at the equator has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening to water in the Arctic now. The CO2 absorbed by that water will not show up for another 800 to 1500 years.
In all cases in this shell game the pea under the pod is TIME.
Hans Erren says:
“Gösta Pettersson has worked out an accurate exponential impulse response for the system,”
nope, she just calculated the dilution ratio of a tracer.
An exponential decay with a time constant of 14 years is not a “ratio” , what do you mean?
The shaky assumptions:
1) CO2 was in equilibrium prior to human emissions
2) The increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning
Human emissions are 4% of the total. The net increase in CO2 each year is 2% of the total. Do we know the natural sinks and sources to such a high precision? Doesn’t a small error in the assumptions pretty much throw the calculations out the window?
The satellites tell us that CO2 is released in the tropics and absorbed at higher latitudes. This is opposite to the notion that humans burning fossil fuels are the cause of the increase, because fossil fuels are primarily consumed at higher latitudes with minimal use in the tropics.
This would tend to indicate that we really have a poor understanding of what is causing the increase in CO2, and that the assumption that it is caused by the combustion of fossil fuels is not proven.
Jim F says:
“This is certainly one of the animated and interesting debates in a while. I have no idea who is right… I come down on the side of ‘carbon emitters’ rather than ‘carbon sinks’.”
Jim F is correct. Nick Stokes says: “The problem is, that’s still a lot of CO2, and not too far off. We’ve seen effects already, but there’s much more to come.”
The “carbon emitters” are doing something that is very beneficial for the biosphere, without any down side. There is much scientific evidence to support that view. But there is no testable, verifiable scientific evidence supporting the failed conjecture that more CO2 is a problem of any kind.
CO2 has been much higher [up to 20X higher] in the past, which has caused no problems. As it is now, the CO2 concentration will not double from current levels, therefore the risk, if any, is infinitesimal. However, we know that the benefits of more CO2 are very substantial.
Those who demonize “carbon” are operating on faith and dogma, not on rational science. They have that right, of course. But they need to use their beliefs without begging for public funds, and without proselytizing. That is where skeptics draw the line. Sience? Good. Religious ‘science’? Not good. Not at all.
JimF says: @ur momisugly July 2, 2013 at 6:21 pm
…..The low end of the range of CO2 content in atmosphere represents a true danger – diminution and death of plant life. I come down on the side of “carbon emitters” rather than “carbon sinks”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes the CO2 spewing Coal Plants and SUV are real heroes, just ask the nearest tree.
Funny all the tree-huggers haven’t “sensed” that yet.
Bart says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“The only source that matches all observations is the continuous release of extra CO2 by humans.”
It does not match this observation. It does not match this one.
Your other observations are equivocal. These are not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In looking at a year’s worth of Global maps of CO2 concentrations link, the oceans and biosphere seem to have a major impact on the CO2 levels.
What I would like to know is why there is high CO2 in Russia north of Moscow every year in December.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/co2map/co2pmapplot_e.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/co2map/co2pmapplot_e.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/co2map/co2pmapplot_e.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/co2map/co2pmapplot_e.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/co2map/co2pmapplot_e.html
“What I would like to know is why there is high CO2 in Russia north of Moscow every year in December.”
Doesn’t water reject gases as it freezes?