I think more people here are on Joe’s side and are just pointing out that Joe himself is over the wrong target in this case. It’s best to be precisely on target so as to avoid friendly fire.
No, Joe thought he was right over the target with his little doubt bomb. When he dropped his half-baked hypothesis it was smartly shot down because it is based on a demonstrably wrong assumption: that the ocean is a net source.
He’s copped a harsher smack-down from me because it shows his deeper political motivation. At best, he fools himself by willingly failing to check any facts, at worst, by deliberately doubt-mongering about the source of the CO2, he reveals his anti-AGW ideology is more important to him than science. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt, afterall incompetence is always more probable than malevolence
Carbon Bigfoot
April 26, 2020 8:39 am
As a subscriber of Weatherbell Analytics, we have come to appreciate the unorthodox delivery of Joe. He was NY TV weather guy in years past until pretty faces and robots have taken over the broadcasts. I suggest that you take advantage of the free Saturday forecast because it is far more instructive than watching T&A on TV.
The left side of the screen was indicative of 1980 oceans temperatures which he used as a comparison or didn’t you catch that? Ocean temperatures today are due to submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration due to a quiet sun Cycle 25, delivering copious amounts of previously understated CO2
All CO2 from undersea volcanoes is simply dissolved in the huge mass of deep ocean waters at the enormous local pressure and the fact that the deep oceans are undersaturated in CO2 at their low temperatures.
Except of course is there is a huge outbreak and the gas masses reach the surface (Bermuda Triangle someone?)…
Carbon Bigfoot posted: “Ocean temperatures today are due to submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration due to a quiet sun Cycle 25 . . .”
Really?
The average depth of Earth’s oceans is about 3,688 meters (12,100 ft). Nearly half of the world’s marine waters are over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep. The vast expanses of deep ocean (anything below 200 meters or 660 feet) cover about 66% of Earth’s surface.
So what percent of cosmic ray-generated gamma radiation penetrates to an ocean depth of 200 meters, let alone a depth of 3,700 meters?
Answer: In astrophysics, gamma rays are conventionally defined as having photon energies above 0.1 MeV and are the subject of gamma ray astronomy. Wikipedia’s article on “Penetration Depth” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_depth ) has an accompanying graph that shows radiation penetration depth (the distance over which radiation intensity decays by 1/e due to absorption and scattering) in water as a function of photon energy. This graph indicates that for photon energies up to about 0.3 MeV, the penetration depth in water is asymptotically approaching about 10 cm. So, this indicates that within the first 1 meter of ocean depth, the intensity of, say, a 1 MeV gamma ray would be attenuated to about 0.005% of its value entering the water. Now, the energy distribution of cosmic rays (particles) peaks at about 0.3 GeV (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray), so let’s pessimistically assume all of a 0.3 GeV particle’s energy could be transformed directly into gamma ray energy and let’s further pessimistically assume that this higher energy would increase the penetration depth by TWO orders of magnitude (i.e., from 10 cm to 10 meters). Such scaling would say that within the first 200 meters of ocean depth, the resulting gamma ray intensity would be reduced to about 0.0000002% of its value entering the water. Bottom line: cosmic gamma rays do not provide any energy to the bottom surfaces of the Earth’s oceans.
Ferdinand & Gordon: https://www.plateclimatology.com/
I suggest that you both read about the evidence in above mentioned 66 page paper.
The video is even more dedicated to non-believers and is only an hour long.
When you have read/view the information I’ll try to explained it further, but I think any critical thinker can fathom (sic) the evidence and agree with the author.( and me ).
Thanks for the suggestion, but I have much better things to do with my time than wade through an article that is long on pretty pictures, handwaving and references, yet fails to present basic mathematics-based science (such a net heat flow balance) in support of the Plate Climatology Theory. In fact, not one single mathematical equation was found in scanning through all 66 pages
Nevertheless, I did go so far as to do a global word search of the full article for the following terms: “gamma”, “ray”, “cosmic” and “infiltration”. Guess what? . . . no hits on any of these. So, if you meant for your linked article to support your claim of “submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration” it ain’t there.
Have you yet reconciled with yourself that cosmic-“ray” originated gamma rays cannot penetrate to an ocean depth sufficient to deposit above-insignificant energy to Earth’s tectonic plates?
Like Gordon, I haven’t read everything, but searched for “CO2”. That showed following gem:
The current global ocean warming period appears to be ending as demonstrated by both the 18-year atmospheric temperature “Pause”, and other global ocean temperature data. The consequence of a lower overall ocean temperature is that the ocean will have a greater ability to retain CO2. It will therefore emit less CO2. The result will be lower atmospheric CO2 levels. This response will “Lag” the temperature “pause” of the atmosphere.
That was written in 2015. After that year we have had the 2016 El Niño and higher ocean temperatures and still increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Seems that their prognoses are not that “robust”…
Maybe Trump is better than T. Jefferson? He is doing a considerably harder job very well. Aren’t TJ, GW and other once esteemed US gents being ‘re-evaluated’ and trashed by “progressives” for their lack of support for diversity, inclusiveness, unwarned trigger words in their ‘writings’ and governing while being old whiteguys?
Be careful, your lack of sensitivity to “enslaved people” is showing.
Take the tour at Jefferson’s mansion, Monticello, in Charlottesville, VA., and find out that there were no slaves. Nope. They were all “enslaved people”. “Really?”, I asked the tour guide? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and all those fairly learned men called them “enslaved workers” or some such thing and not “slaves”?
Well, yes, of course they called them slaves BACK THEN. But don’t you know, the term “slave” puts the onus on the enslaved person, whereas calling them “enslaved” blames the owner for the sin. “Ah”, said I, so you no longer care about history here. Such a shame that people like you prefer to spout 21st century political correctness and shadow the larger history of Jefferson’s life. A genius who helped create and establish a new nation, and your idiotic focus is that somehow he’s to blame for failing to find the time to abolish an accepted part of 18th century society. Shame on the curators/liars of Monticello.
The thing I like about planting trees is that it’s one way benefit. If you plant a tree, someone somewhere else in the world doesn’t cut down a tree because you made trees cheaper. Maybe in 50 years but not today. If you do something like not burn a litre of oil the price of oil goes down and somewhere in the world someone burns another litre. No net benefit.
I have to confess that I spend a lot of effort removing volunteer seedlings, saplings and runners from my property, mostly in the spring time. Between the maples and their seeds and the aspen and cottonwood with their runners, it’s a battle. Once in a while, I will put a rogue fir or oak into a pot for future use.
I do get some help from squirrels and birds, who eat the seeds, but they miss quite a lot of them.
Jack Black
April 26, 2020 10:15 am
CO2 twittering away with fatuous trivia, and making video rants, about the bloviations of other commentators etc. Let’s not forget that folks like Bastardi are vested interest cash grabbers in an oversaturated marketplace, where everybody with a computer (or even a smartphone these days) can set up a “weather channel” with its own internet pages and hope to reap in the cashola from the vast reservoir of ignorant mugs who might subscribe, or fall victim to even displaying page view advertisements. Bastardi has a vested interest in getting more people visiting his page, even if it’s just to argue with him. He’s just another waffling rentseeker, putting the CO2 cart before the horse after it has already bolted already. Bah !
He also has a vested interest in being correct most of the time or he will lose his subscribers, his business and all the effort and expense to starting it in the first place.
And it’s all legal. Go Joe! Love your books, videos, TV interviews, and outstanding hurricane reviews, analyses, and outlooks — which are often better than official outlooks.
Clay Sanborn
April 26, 2020 10:17 am
We NEED more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Plants and the “greening” of Earth want much more than current levels (3 to 4 times as much). If we want more food, increase CO2. If we want more trees (i.e. plants), increase CO2. These statements should be the mantra of environmentalists. My only concern is that we also get more poison ivy, poison oak, etc.
N. Jensen
April 26, 2020 3:22 pm
How large were human co2 emissions at the start of the Keeling curve, and how large is it now ?
If, as I suspect, human emissions has risen exponentially, why is that not seen in the Keeling curve, that shows a near monotonic, linear rise ?
Sorry, I do not see the accelerating You are referring to.
Even if we accept Engelbeens contention that natural sources and sinks are equal (for the whole Keeling period), how do you reconcile the exponential growth in human emissions with the nearly linear rise in the Keeling curve ?
Seems to me, the rise is overwhelming natural, and net beneficial, too for that matter.
Its not linear. In the 60s the annual increase was only 1ppm/year now its close to 3. Half our our emission get sequestered and that rate has been increasing too.
Natural sinks and sources were not equal in the past 60, years, sinks were always larger than sources. Net sinks in oceans and vegetation are directly proportional to the extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere compared to the “normal” equilibrium (~290 ppmv) for the current average sea surface temperature.
Thus sinks are independent of the yearly human emissions. That the increase in the atmosphere was about 50% of the emissions was pure coincidence: emissions increased slightly quadratic over time, so did the increase in the atmosphere and thus the sinks and the “airborne fraction” remained about constant.
The moment that the emissions remain near constant, CO2 in the atmosphere still increases and thus the net sinks increase and the increase in the atmosphere gets smaller.
With half human emissions, there is no increase in the atmosphere anymore as emissions and sinks are equal.
With zero human emissions, there will be a decrease in the atmosphere, proportional to the extra pressure in the atmosphere, until the equilibrium is reached again.
Over the past 60 years, the net sink rate per year was about 1/50 of the extra pressure in the atmosphere, or an e-fold decay rate (tau) of about 50 years.
@ferdinand meeus, on the basis of which model do you give this assessment? And what is your view on the natural experiment that is going on? Visible after 2 months? Three? A year?
The “model” is simply a linear ratio above the equilibrium, based on the past 60 years of rather accurate data for human emissions from the use of fossil fuels and the measured increase in the atmosphere:
The e-fold decay rate for a linear process is tau = cause/effect
– In 1959: 25 ppmv extra above equilibrium, net sink rate 0.5 ppmv/year, e-fold decay rate 50 years, half life time 34.7 years
– In 1988: 1988: 60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years, half life time 36.8 years
In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years or a half life time of 35.5 years.
Seems quite linear to me. One can plot the expected increase in the atmosphere from human emissions and the calculated net sink rate on basis of the ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and equilibrium. That gives following plot (needs some update…): http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2B.jpg
where the calculated increase is in the middle of the temperature induced “noise”…
Without an El Niño or huge volcanic outbreak, any reduction of the human emissions should be measurable after a full year, but I don’t expect (and hope) that the reduction will be that long and severe…
Interesting to see the amount of flak Joe is getting. He must be right over a highly sensitive target.
I think more people here are on Joe’s side and are just pointing out that Joe himself is over the wrong target in this case. It’s best to be precisely on target so as to avoid friendly fire.
No, Joe thought he was right over the target with his little doubt bomb. When he dropped his half-baked hypothesis it was smartly shot down because it is based on a demonstrably wrong assumption: that the ocean is a net source.
He’s copped a harsher smack-down from me because it shows his deeper political motivation. At best, he fools himself by willingly failing to check any facts, at worst, by deliberately doubt-mongering about the source of the CO2, he reveals his anti-AGW ideology is more important to him than science. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt, afterall incompetence is always more probable than malevolence
As a subscriber of Weatherbell Analytics, we have come to appreciate the unorthodox delivery of Joe. He was NY TV weather guy in years past until pretty faces and robots have taken over the broadcasts. I suggest that you take advantage of the free Saturday forecast because it is far more instructive than watching T&A on TV.
The left side of the screen was indicative of 1980 oceans temperatures which he used as a comparison or didn’t you catch that? Ocean temperatures today are due to submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration due to a quiet sun Cycle 25, delivering copious amounts of previously understated CO2
You’re my hero, Carbon Bigfoot, because you got “T&A on TV” past the Snipper, Charles Rotter. Lucky for you that ctm was not the Snipper, just saying.
Carbon Bigfoot,
All CO2 from undersea volcanoes is simply dissolved in the huge mass of deep ocean waters at the enormous local pressure and the fact that the deep oceans are undersaturated in CO2 at their low temperatures.
Except of course is there is a huge outbreak and the gas masses reach the surface (Bermuda Triangle someone?)…
Carbon Bigfoot posted: “Ocean temperatures today are due to submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration due to a quiet sun Cycle 25 . . .”
Really?
The average depth of Earth’s oceans is about 3,688 meters (12,100 ft). Nearly half of the world’s marine waters are over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep. The vast expanses of deep ocean (anything below 200 meters or 660 feet) cover about 66% of Earth’s surface.
So what percent of cosmic ray-generated gamma radiation penetrates to an ocean depth of 200 meters, let alone a depth of 3,700 meters?
Answer: In astrophysics, gamma rays are conventionally defined as having photon energies above 0.1 MeV and are the subject of gamma ray astronomy. Wikipedia’s article on “Penetration Depth” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_depth ) has an accompanying graph that shows radiation penetration depth (the distance over which radiation intensity decays by 1/e due to absorption and scattering) in water as a function of photon energy. This graph indicates that for photon energies up to about 0.3 MeV, the penetration depth in water is asymptotically approaching about 10 cm. So, this indicates that within the first 1 meter of ocean depth, the intensity of, say, a 1 MeV gamma ray would be attenuated to about 0.005% of its value entering the water. Now, the energy distribution of cosmic rays (particles) peaks at about 0.3 GeV (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray), so let’s pessimistically assume all of a 0.3 GeV particle’s energy could be transformed directly into gamma ray energy and let’s further pessimistically assume that this higher energy would increase the penetration depth by TWO orders of magnitude (i.e., from 10 cm to 10 meters). Such scaling would say that within the first 200 meters of ocean depth, the resulting gamma ray intensity would be reduced to about 0.0000002% of its value entering the water. Bottom line: cosmic gamma rays do not provide any energy to the bottom surfaces of the Earth’s oceans.
Ferdinand & Gordon:
https://www.plateclimatology.com/
I suggest that you both read about the evidence in above mentioned 66 page paper.
The video is even more dedicated to non-believers and is only an hour long.
When you have read/view the information I’ll try to explained it further, but I think any critical thinker can fathom (sic) the evidence and agree with the author.( and me ).
Bigfoot,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I have much better things to do with my time than wade through an article that is long on pretty pictures, handwaving and references, yet fails to present basic mathematics-based science (such a net heat flow balance) in support of the Plate Climatology Theory. In fact, not one single mathematical equation was found in scanning through all 66 pages
Nevertheless, I did go so far as to do a global word search of the full article for the following terms: “gamma”, “ray”, “cosmic” and “infiltration”. Guess what? . . . no hits on any of these. So, if you meant for your linked article to support your claim of “submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration” it ain’t there.
Have you yet reconciled with yourself that cosmic-“ray” originated gamma rays cannot penetrate to an ocean depth sufficient to deposit above-insignificant energy to Earth’s tectonic plates?
Carbon Bigfoot,
Like Gordon, I haven’t read everything, but searched for “CO2”. That showed following gem:
The current global ocean warming period appears to be ending as demonstrated by both the 18-year atmospheric temperature “Pause”, and other global ocean temperature data. The consequence of a lower overall ocean temperature is that the ocean will have a greater ability to retain CO2. It will therefore emit less CO2. The result will be lower atmospheric CO2 levels. This response will “Lag” the temperature “pause” of the atmosphere.
That was written in 2015. After that year we have had the 2016 El Niño and higher ocean temperatures and still increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Seems that their prognoses are not that “robust”…
Maybe Trump is better than T. Jefferson? He is doing a considerably harder job very well. Aren’t TJ, GW and other once esteemed US gents being ‘re-evaluated’ and trashed by “progressives” for their lack of support for diversity, inclusiveness, unwarned trigger words in their ‘writings’ and governing while being old whiteguys?
Indeed. Who’s Thomas Jefferson? You mean the character in Hamilton, the musical?
Well … Trump never owned slaves … nor did he sire a child by one of those slaves!
I’m sure that CNN would say “allegedly he has never owned slaves”, or “Trump claims, without providing evidence, that he never owned slaves”
Be careful, your lack of sensitivity to “enslaved people” is showing.
Take the tour at Jefferson’s mansion, Monticello, in Charlottesville, VA., and find out that there were no slaves. Nope. They were all “enslaved people”. “Really?”, I asked the tour guide? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and all those fairly learned men called them “enslaved workers” or some such thing and not “slaves”?
Well, yes, of course they called them slaves BACK THEN. But don’t you know, the term “slave” puts the onus on the enslaved person, whereas calling them “enslaved” blames the owner for the sin. “Ah”, said I, so you no longer care about history here. Such a shame that people like you prefer to spout 21st century political correctness and shadow the larger history of Jefferson’s life. A genius who helped create and establish a new nation, and your idiotic focus is that somehow he’s to blame for failing to find the time to abolish an accepted part of 18th century society. Shame on the curators/liars of Monticello.
Sorry … I forgot the /sarc. tag. I am in total agreement with you
The thing I like about planting trees is that it’s one way benefit. If you plant a tree, someone somewhere else in the world doesn’t cut down a tree because you made trees cheaper. Maybe in 50 years but not today. If you do something like not burn a litre of oil the price of oil goes down and somewhere in the world someone burns another litre. No net benefit.
I have to confess that I spend a lot of effort removing volunteer seedlings, saplings and runners from my property, mostly in the spring time. Between the maples and their seeds and the aspen and cottonwood with their runners, it’s a battle. Once in a while, I will put a rogue fir or oak into a pot for future use.
I do get some help from squirrels and birds, who eat the seeds, but they miss quite a lot of them.
CO2 twittering away with fatuous trivia, and making video rants, about the bloviations of other commentators etc. Let’s not forget that folks like Bastardi are vested interest cash grabbers in an oversaturated marketplace, where everybody with a computer (or even a smartphone these days) can set up a “weather channel” with its own internet pages and hope to reap in the cashola from the vast reservoir of ignorant mugs who might subscribe, or fall victim to even displaying page view advertisements. Bastardi has a vested interest in getting more people visiting his page, even if it’s just to argue with him. He’s just another waffling rentseeker, putting the CO2 cart before the horse after it has already bolted already. Bah !
He also has a vested interest in being correct most of the time or he will lose his subscribers, his business and all the effort and expense to starting it in the first place.
And it’s all legal. Go Joe! Love your books, videos, TV interviews, and outstanding hurricane reviews, analyses, and outlooks — which are often better than official outlooks.
We NEED more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Plants and the “greening” of Earth want much more than current levels (3 to 4 times as much). If we want more food, increase CO2. If we want more trees (i.e. plants), increase CO2. These statements should be the mantra of environmentalists. My only concern is that we also get more poison ivy, poison oak, etc.
How large were human co2 emissions at the start of the Keeling curve, and how large is it now ?
If, as I suspect, human emissions has risen exponentially, why is that not seen in the Keeling curve, that shows a near monotonic, linear rise ?
It is, the increase is atmospheric concentration is accellerating. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Sorry, I do not see the accelerating You are referring to.
Even if we accept Engelbeens contention that natural sources and sinks are equal (for the whole Keeling period), how do you reconcile the exponential growth in human emissions with the nearly linear rise in the Keeling curve ?
Seems to me, the rise is overwhelming natural, and net beneficial, too for that matter.
Its not linear. In the 60s the annual increase was only 1ppm/year now its close to 3. Half our our emission get sequestered and that rate has been increasing too.
N. Jensen,
Natural sinks and sources were not equal in the past 60, years, sinks were always larger than sources. Net sinks in oceans and vegetation are directly proportional to the extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere compared to the “normal” equilibrium (~290 ppmv) for the current average sea surface temperature.
Thus sinks are independent of the yearly human emissions. That the increase in the atmosphere was about 50% of the emissions was pure coincidence: emissions increased slightly quadratic over time, so did the increase in the atmosphere and thus the sinks and the “airborne fraction” remained about constant.
The moment that the emissions remain near constant, CO2 in the atmosphere still increases and thus the net sinks increase and the increase in the atmosphere gets smaller.
With half human emissions, there is no increase in the atmosphere anymore as emissions and sinks are equal.
With zero human emissions, there will be a decrease in the atmosphere, proportional to the extra pressure in the atmosphere, until the equilibrium is reached again.
Over the past 60 years, the net sink rate per year was about 1/50 of the extra pressure in the atmosphere, or an e-fold decay rate (tau) of about 50 years.
@ferdinand meeus, on the basis of which model do you give this assessment? And what is your view on the natural experiment that is going on? Visible after 2 months? Three? A year?
Cyril,
The “model” is simply a linear ratio above the equilibrium, based on the past 60 years of rather accurate data for human emissions from the use of fossil fuels and the measured increase in the atmosphere:
The e-fold decay rate for a linear process is tau = cause/effect
– In 1959: 25 ppmv extra above equilibrium, net sink rate 0.5 ppmv/year, e-fold decay rate 50 years, half life time 34.7 years
– In 1988: 1988: 60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years, half life time 36.8 years
In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years or a half life time of 35.5 years.
Seems quite linear to me. One can plot the expected increase in the atmosphere from human emissions and the calculated net sink rate on basis of the ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and equilibrium. That gives following plot (needs some update…):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2B.jpg
where the calculated increase is in the middle of the temperature induced “noise”…
Without an El Niño or huge volcanic outbreak, any reduction of the human emissions should be measurable after a full year, but I don’t expect (and hope) that the reduction will be that long and severe…
Nuclear
Nook lee er
NOT “Nook u ler”.
Sorry, Pet Peeve rant. Makes otherwise very smart people sound like idiots when they can’t pronounce such a simple word.
_Rise_ of tectonic plates (or other parts of the earth) results in apparent decrease in sea level, I said it backwards.
(There are suggestions that some ground is subsiding, such as on the east coast of the US.
The Hawaiin islands see much volcanic action, which is probably associated with plate movement – terra firma is not.)
Romeo R:
Thankyou.
Part of what you say illustrates the tendency of eco-bleeps to make simplistic assumptions.
Sometimes from ignorance and laziness – they don’t go look.
Tree planting after tree harvesting is common in B.C., it will proceed this summer despite the panicdemic.
Regrowth without planting by humans can be variable, a big area on the Olympic Peninsula showed that.