A Response To “A CO2 Oddity”

By Joe Bastardi

I see that Willis has referenced an idea I posed on a blog from another source so I wanted to make sure for WUWT I am clear. The last person I want to pick a fight with is Willis (or anyone. I simply observe, but forth ideas, and then in what I do, make a forecast for people willing to look) You notice that while I am a WUWT groupie, rarely do I comment.

The. “Go to” site for me on co2 is the Keeling Curve Site. https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/    Its 2 year chart (you must click on it) does show some interesting things. Please excuse my lousy artwork, for along with being a lousy writer, I can’t draw to save my life. But you will get the point. (If you are wondering how I can write books, it is because I have a great editor, and he gets paid a % some other writers have told me is like he is getting combat pay.  He is. He can translate Bastardiese, which is a level slightly below pig latin).

Now the blue line represents the late winter leveling off of co2, from what I have been told, the maximum time of year for arctic sea ice.   When the ice starts to melt up goes co2 again until the foliage and lack of fossil fuel use in the northern hemisphere takes it back down. (This forms one of the legs of my “no fault” idea to get rid of the co2 fear without crashing our economy. 1) Plant a trillion trees worldwide. There is where the push should be on other governments. It is cheap and environmentally friendly. 2. Nuclear power. We have to get rid of the Jane Fonda induced “China Syndrome”  (see the movie)hangover. In fact the only true China syndrome is that China leads the world in true air pollutant and ocean pollutant emissions. 3) Carbon Capture.  Anyway, back in spring, when Covid hit,  there was a mad rush to say  the shutdown was reducing pollutants. It was, true pollutants of which co2 is not one.  PARTICULATE AND TRUE POLLUTANTS WERE BEING REDUCED. But Co2 leveling off was like it is every year if you can blow up the jagged rise line you see in multi- year graphs.  My observation is that this has been rising along with the increase in SST which is largely natural and cyclical (another argument for another time since there is much about the oceans we do not know.  I am a Bill Gray person on this matter) My hypothesis was stated in the article if you read it, but I will rehash it here.

  1. Oceans are the biggest sink of co2
  2. The warmer the oceans, the more co2 released.
  3. The oceans have warmed.
  4. Co2 has increased.

Of course, our “friends” on the other side of the argument want to argue its co2 that has lead to the warming, and quite frankly I am open to that argument as long as warming persists.  I don’t believe it, but BELIEVING something and ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE are 2 different things.

I believe in gravity, so do you. That is belief and absolute knowledge.  I also believe that the pattern we are in can lead to a lot of snow in the south and the east, and will produce a major period of cold for a few weeks.  But that is not absolute knowledge and even if and when it occurs, there will be arguments over it. The big difference I see in this debate over co2, is that while I acknowledge that they have every right to try to assign blame if they wish,  the  bulk of the people that do that will not look at anything that can challenge them. Even if there is precedent for warming in past times that has had little or nothing to do with co2, but instead as many of us believe, is largely natural. And that should tell you what the real conclusion is, that all our hand wringing over this is not truly about a level scientific argument among people of good will, but a smoke screen for “other things”. ( you can fill in your own ideas on that)

But in fairness to Willis he only looked thru November with his chart if I am reading it right. Look again at the red lines ( again this was in the article that was used as a tease for what was put on WUWT)

Clearly the slope from the min to max last year before the late winter level off ( then as you can see it resumes) was more sharply up than it has been this year.  We increased about 5 ppm last year by this time, this year its about 3ppm. Now I think its because of what has been a big down turn in SST since last year at this time. Check this out, the difference in anomalies.

But I wrote this because I have been pushing this idea since summer to watch for this, a natural cause, knowing full well that there would be arguments for Covid style lock downs due to climate (Again I make clear in the article and in my book, my thoughts on this matter)

And I may not be right. I see other arguments, one has to, for the secret to having a chance to forecast the weather in a way that adds value is to making sure the idea one is most skeptical of is your own.  Then you go looking for trouble and if you can counter it first, you have a chance.  But I wanted to make sure that readers understood, even if wrong, where I as coming from.

To quote Eric Burdon from the Animals:

I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
O Lord please don’t let me be misunderstood.

4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
202 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hans Erren
January 8, 2021 6:11 am

if warming is the cause of the current observed co2 rise why didn’t it rise so much in the warmereemian, the holocene uptimum, the minoan optimum, the roman optimum or the medieval warm period?

it just doesn’t add up. warming accounts only for 16 ppm rise per degC.

Roj
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 8, 2021 6:31 am

I hadn’t realised that they were measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa back then. Or are you getting your data from somewhere else?

Reply to  Hans Erren
January 8, 2021 7:00 am

There is no way that the resolution of ice core data (centuries +) could show the seasonal variation or even annual averages of CO2 observed in the Keeling curves.

Reply to  Fred Haynie
January 8, 2021 9:34 am

Although it’s true that most Antarctic ice cores can’t resolve centennial shifts, the Law Dome DE08 core can resolve decadal changes in CO2 over the past ~2,000 years. It clearly demonstrates that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age had very little impact on CO2. However, it does demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 stopped rising in the 1950’s and possibly declined, despite increasing emissions. This is thought to be the result of the mid-20th century cooling.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 8, 2021 10:46 am

Diffusion in solids at low temperatures is a slow process but it does exist and 10 + years is a relatively long time.

Reply to  Fred Haynie
January 8, 2021 11:04 am

Think carbon dioxide clathrates.

Reply to  Fred Haynie
January 8, 2021 11:04 am

It’s a function of the snow accumulation rate. With a very high accumulation rate, the pore throats are sealed off fairly quickly at Law Dome, reducing the diffusion and “smearing.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/28/breaking-hockey-sticks-antarctic-ice-core-edition/

Ian W
Reply to  David Middleton
January 8, 2021 1:09 pm

CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core

Jinho AHN,1,2 Melissa HEADLY,1 Martin WAHLEN,1 Edward J. BROOK,2 Paul A. MAYEWSKI,3 Kendrick C. TAYLOR4

 

ABSTRACT.

One common assumption in interpreting ice-core CO2 records is that diffusion in the ice does not affect the concentration profile. However, this assumption remains untested because the extremely small CO2 diffusion coefficient in ice has not been accurately determined in the laboratory. In this study we take advantage of high levels of CO2 associated with refrozen layers in an ice core from Siple Dome, Antarctica, to study CO2 diffusion rates. We use noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity and Ca2+ ion concentrations to show that substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years. We estimate the permeation coefficient for CO2 in ice is [1]4 10–21 molm–1 s–1 Pa–1 at –238C in the top 287m (corresponding to 2.74 kyr). Smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion at this depth/age is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the smoothing in the firn. However, simulations for depths of [1]930–950m ([1]60–70 kyr) indicate that smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion in deep ice is comparable to smoothing in the firn. Other types of diffusion (e.g. via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important but their influence has not been quantified.

 

Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 54, No. 187, 2008

Diffusion in the ice has been studied before.

Reply to  Ian W
January 8, 2021 1:41 pm

In the case of Law Dome, it’s not particularly deep ice. 2 ka is only at about 800 m, so diffusion within the ice is likely to be insignificant relative to smoothing in the firn. The air-ice age differential is only 10-30 years over the past 2,000 years, so there is relatively little smoothing in the firn. It’s the one ice core that can actually resolve decadal shifts in CO2. But it only has such resolution back about 2,000 years.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/site-information-and-initial-results-from-deep-ice-drilling-on-law-dome-antarctica/D3E21C48552683073306AE5DD02EDFCC
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/9959
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247

TallDave
Reply to  David Middleton
January 15, 2021 9:01 am

very interesting

still, one data source and only 2000 years

remains quite possible not every warming cycle leads to higher CO2 levels, but for various reasons (including human emissions) our current one does

suspect the relationship has a lot of hidden dynamics and tipping points, e.g. perhaps in a cooling cycle human emissions would have far less effect on CO2 levels

Last edited 1 month ago by TallDave
Greg
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 8, 2021 7:06 am

you make the usual erroneous assumption that you can reduce the entire climate system to a linear relationship between two variables. Maybe something else was different, (like more vegetation, for example). Complex, multivariate, non linear, chaotic systems don’t work like that.

warming accounts only for 16 ppm rise per degC.

You give no source for that claim, I should believe you?

Greg
Reply to  Greg
January 8, 2021 7:34 am

Higher temperature will lead to outgassing: that is a rate of change of CO2 not a fixed changed.

To conclude a fixed change as you do, you are assuming that the entire global system has reached equilibrium, which of course it never does.

That is why you always find SST is in phase with dCO2 , not the level of CO2 at any one time. This is true on inter-annual, decadal or centennial scales.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/ddtco2_sst_15mlanc/
comment image

Greg
Reply to  Greg
January 8, 2021 7:37 am

6 year filter:
comment image

So until you equilibriate the deep oceans, you need to analyse dCO2 vs SST.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Greg
January 8, 2021 7:54 am

I think there are numerous passengers in the climate coach and every now and then they swap seats and install a new driver. However whilst co2 undoubtedly changes places frequently, I doubt it ever climbs into the drivers seat

MarkW
Reply to  tonyb
January 8, 2021 8:51 am

It seems to me that everybody on the climate coach is a driver. It’s just that some of them have really big steering wheels, and some have really little steering wheels.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2021 11:46 am

And CO2 has no steering wheel, just a window seat. Repeated episodes of REVERSE correlation in the ice core reconstructions establish that definitively, for those who are not logically challenged. CO2 has never been empirically shown to “drive,” all or in part, the Earth’s climate. It’s supposed “influence” is just hypothetical, an academic discussion and nothing more.

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 8, 2021 2:01 pm

The size of CO2 steering wheel depends a lot on how much CO2 there is. When there is very little, it has a bigger steering wheel. As the concentration increases, the size of the steering wheel shrinks. Just because it’s hard to pick out a signal amongst other much larger signals, is not evidence that the signal is not there.

Lrp
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2021 5:58 pm

Is ECS also a multi variable function?

Reply to  Lrp
January 8, 2021 6:10 pm

By definition.

Lrp
Reply to  David Middleton
January 8, 2021 8:29 pm

I assume that time is just another variable; excuse my ignorance, but why do people try to assign a fixed value for it then, even as a range, and use it climate forecast?

Reply to  Greg
January 8, 2021 10:26 am

The precise number is difficult to pin down, but it’s probably in the 8-20 ppm range. The Bølling-Allerød interstadial is associated with a sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 (25-35 ppm in ice cores, >100 ppm in some plant stomata chronologies) and warming of about 3 °C over ~100 years. The ice cores almost certainly underestimate the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the plant stomata chronologies probably over estimate it. Even if the stomata chronologies are correct, it only gets us to about 30 ppm/°C.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  David Middleton
January 8, 2021 3:34 pm

DM,
The amount of CO2 that can leave the oceans enter the atmosphere upon heating can be viewed two ways. One is the laboratory way, where there is a fixed volume of liquid to donate its CO2. The other is the natural way, where there is continuous mixing of the ocean waters going to the surface with the possibility of continuous rises in CO2. Point is, be careful with laboratory constants like those for Henry’s Law, which are more constrained than in Nature. Be careful with that alleged 15 ppm change per degree C. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 8, 2021 4:02 pm

I think Nature is very good at being more complicated than can be simulated under laboratory conditions.

TallDave
Reply to  David Middleton
January 15, 2021 9:08 am
  • All right. I already see you turning off. I can see you say you don’t understand me. You can’t understand that it could be chance. “I don’t like it!” Tough! I don’t like it either, but that’s the way it is! OK? I don’t understand it either. …”It must be that Nature knows that it’s going to go up or down.” No, it must not be that nature knows! We are not to tell Nature what she’s gotta be! That’s what we found out. Every time we take a guess as how she’s got to be, and go and measure… She’s clever. She’s always got better imagination than we have, and she finds a cleverer way to do it than we have thought of. And in this particular case, the clever way to do it is by probability, by odds. …[L]ight works by probability.Lecture 1. “Photons: Corpuscles of Light” (1979) Sir Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures, University of Auckland.
Greg
Reply to  David Middleton
January 9, 2021 9:19 am

” Even if the stomata chronologies are correct, it only gets us to about 30 ppm/°C.”

100y is not time to equilibrium. It’s the same problem of the wrong analysis.
what B-A shows is an average of 1ppmv/year change over a century during which temperature changed dramatically.

https://climategrog.wordpress.com/ddtco2_sst_72mlanc/

I estimated 3.57 ppmv/a/K for decadal change ; 1.9 ppmv/a/K over 25y scale, so 0.3ppmv/a/K would be of the right order for centennial change.

Reply to  Greg
January 9, 2021 6:25 pm

Correct… But it is relevant to what we have observed over the past few 100 years.

Tim C.
Reply to  Greg
January 10, 2021 5:38 pm

Greg,

The initial part of your analysis estimates a sensitivity of 17.4 ppm CO2/Kelvin. Regardless of the accuracy there, you then quadruple your estimate with this argument:

Thermocline is between 100-200m , so taking an average of 150m and subtracting 30m of mixed layer, a body of water about 120m ie four times the volume of the mixed layer. Thus this layer could be expected to have an effect four times as large as the mixed layer on atmospheric CO2. There will be some overlap of the two effects.

This is mistaken. The amount of outgassing from a body of water is not proportional to the amount of water (or in this case, the amount of well-mixed water). Mixing in additional water only matters if the outgassing has significantly depleted the gas concentration of the initial water. Once the original concentration is nearly restored, no amount of additional mixing will increase the outgassing.

The enhancement will be nowhere near a factor of 4.

Reply to  Hans Erren
January 8, 2021 10:17 am

I believe CO2 diffusion out of the ocean is small.

Instead a much bigger dynamic is the mass release of CO2 at upwelling sites that add most CO2 to the atmosphere. Warming effects are more indirect. During the Little Ice Age, ocean productivity and upwelling were low off the shores of Peru, the greatest region of coastal upwelling. As the earth warmed beginning in 1850s, upwelling and productivity increased tremendously. So one thing to consider is how is CO2 balanced by increased upwelling that vents CO2 vs accompanying increased productivity that sends CO2 in the form of organic matter back to the ocean depths.

The second issue is where is upwelling happening? During the transition form Ice Age to the Holocene, it was upwelling around the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) that released tremendous amounts of stored CO2 into the atmosphere raising CO2 from 190 ppm to about 300 ppm. Some studies show that upwelling promoted a burst of heavy diatom productivity that eventually brought CO2 down to about 280 ppm.

LIke the ACC, equatorial upwelling is also large. But both of those upwelling regions can migrate over time and tap reservoirs of CO2 that provide different amounts of CO2.

I dont doubt humans contribute to CO2 via fossil fuel burning, as well as ocean upwelling. I just didnt know how to differentiate the two sources. But Joe’s mention of comparing the change in other pollutants vs the change in CO2 during the COVID shutdowns seems to offer promising insight.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Jim Steele
January 8, 2021 12:50 pm

Jim,

Any recent references would be appreciated. What I have seen appears to be quite contentious. Upwelling brings cold water (which aligns with global coolimg as a consequence of La Niña), but the high CO2 and low O2 content is where the dispute seems to exist. High CO2 either brings additional atmospheric CO2 (seems unlikely since growth rates diminish) and/or it facilitates phytoplankton growth in the surface ocean which then uses up the abundance of CO2 and creates O2 (in the surface waters).

Loydo
Reply to  Jim Steele
January 8, 2021 3:11 pm

“I believe CO2 diffusion out of the ocean is small.”

How small? If CO2 was diffusing out of the ocean the concentration in shallow ocean waters would be decreasing. It’s not, there is a net increase.

comment image

From https://www.si.edu/

Last edited 1 month ago by Loydo
David A
Reply to  Loydo
January 8, 2021 4:42 pm

Well perhaps the actual warming is so small that CO2 is having very little affect.
Is that OH for global oceans. ( Needs error bars)

Reply to  Loydo
January 8, 2021 4:47 pm

The troll factory really should send someone that is more informed about ocean carbon cycles. lloydo uses a graph for Hawaii for 20 years and thinks its the whole world. And doesnt even know why CO2 or pH may increase or decrease in the oceans Lloydo’s is mostly propaganda lacking sound science.

For example regards rising CO2 around Hawaii an earlier paper (Dore 2009) had observed, “Air-sea CO2 fluxes, while variable, did not appear to exert an influence on surface pH variability. For example, low fluxes of CO2 into the sea from 1998–2002 corresponded with low pH and relatively high fluxes during 2003–2005 were coincident with high pH; the opposite pattern would be expected if variability in the atmospheric CO2 invasion was the primary driver of anomalous DIC accumulation. 

Regions that are net sources of out-gassing CO2 experience lower pH solely due to upwelling of ancient waters, and the pH is lower than predicted from simple equilibration with the atmosphere. As seen in the linked map there are widespread regions where CO2 is outgassing from deep storage.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/102357977_scaled_606x262.jpg

Loydo
Reply to  Jim Steele
January 8, 2021 7:32 pm

Jim, while there are differences by lattitude and by temperature the ocean is not a net CO2 source it is a net sink and a substantial one.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to anthropogenic emissions has resulted in the oceans taking up CO2 at a rate of about 7 GtCO2 yr-1 (2 GtCyr-1). Over the past 200 years the oceans have taken up 500 GtCO2 from the atmosphere out of 1300 GtCO2 total anthropogenic emissions. Anthropogenic CO2 resides primarily in the upper ocean and has thus far resulted in a decrease of pH of about 0.1 at the ocean surface with virtually no change in pH deep in the oceans. Models predict that the oceans will take up most CO2 released to the atmosphere over several centuries as CO2 is dissolved at the ocean surface and mixed with deep ocean waters.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapter6-1.pdf

Reply to  Loydo
January 8, 2021 8:14 pm

Sorry Lloydo but you’re wrong again.

To claim “Anthropogenic CO2 resides primarily in the upper ocean and has thus far resulted in a decrease of pH of about 0.1 ” is a totally unsubstantiated claim by alarmists.

CO2 that enters the surface is quickly incorporated into organic matter much of which sinks far from the surface. Upwelling of old CO2 and nutrients stored at depth back to the srface is needed to maintain the foundation of both the ocean and terrestrial food webs. Read and learn

This is clearly laid out in Ocean Health – Is there an “Acidification” problem?
http://co2coalition.org/2020/06/01/ocean-health-is-there-an-acidification-problem/

Loydo
Reply to  Jim Steele
January 8, 2021 8:30 pm

I am not going to dispute what you are saying about pH.

The main point I am making is that because the ocean is a net sink it has not and cannot have contributed additional CO2 to the atmosphere in modern times, regardless of how much it has warmed.

David A
Reply to  Loydo
January 9, 2021 3:17 am

One would think that in any series of pluses and minuses, if one of the subtractions is reduced, the net answer increases.

Also certainly not yet convinced that we know the oceans net contribution. Far to often error bars in human understanding of global processes are lacking.

Reply to  Loydo
January 9, 2021 12:22 pm

LOLydo Your display of ignorance to fit your beliefs is amusing. Of course you cant honestly dispute the pH claim. It was your typical troll factory drive-by dishonest shot.

Indeed the ocean is a CO2 sink and now stores 50 times more CO2 the atmosphere. Bt how do you know the ocean cannot be contribute to the atmospheric CO2?

During preindustrial times, the UN IPCC suggests 60 billion tons of carbon were absorbed through ocean surfaces each year, while 60.7 billion tons ventilated back to the atmosphere. That surplus of ventilated CO2 could then be utilized by land plants for photosynthesis.

The great importance of CO2 ventilation is under appreciated. If all other climate dynamics remained unchanged, but ventilation of ocean CO2 completely stopped, our atmosphere would become devoid of CO2 within four or five decades. Land photosynthesis would come to a devastating halt.

Second if we assume the oceans are a sink for atmospheric CO2 as the CO2 becomes sequestered in organic matter or at depths where it doesnt contribute to upwelled CO2, that does NOT mean that ocean upwelling is not contributing greater amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

As usual LOLydo you just make things up like a good troll

Loydo
Reply to  Jim Steele
January 9, 2021 8:19 pm

I believe CO2 diffusion out of the ocean is small.”

“Indeed the ocean is a CO2 sink”

Indeed it is.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Loydo
January 10, 2021 12:26 pm

The net ocean absorption is more like 1GtC of an enormous flux of some 120GtC each way. This can be constrained by the isotopic ratios of the atmosphere and the fractionations that vary substantially with the direction of the flux.  

Balanced Carbon Cycle.jpg
Loydo
Reply to  gymnosperm
January 10, 2021 2:59 pm

Yes it is relatively small (yes because human emissions are relatively small). What is contemptuous is this continuing effort to disinform about it. Claiming the warming ocean is the source of the extra CO2 is nothing but a zombie myth that keeps getting currency by comments like: ” 2. The warmer the oceans, the more co2 released.”

How is it not either deliberate disinformation or eye-watering ignorance?

Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 6:20 am

Love ya Joe, but you appear to be in the Bjorn Lomborg camp of assuming that CO2 is a bad thing that needs to be removed. Not so. You state: “This forms one of the legs of my “no fault” idea to get rid of the co2 fear without crashing our economy.”
If we find that increasing CO2 is benefiting the Earth and humanity (it is), then why advocate for sequestration?

M Courtney
Reply to  Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 7:42 am

If it costs nothing and people want to do it, let them do it.
Even help them do it if it’s not too much hassle.
That’s just nice.

The problem isn’t that Greens want to make the world a better place without a clue how to do it.
The problem is that Greens want to make the world a better place without a clue how to afford it.

Fraizer
Reply to  M Courtney
January 8, 2021 9:07 am

The problem is that Greens want to make the world work according to their vision – physics and economics be damned.

Davidf
Reply to  Fraizer
January 8, 2021 11:44 am

The Greens want to bring in a Socialist utopia, history be damned

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  M Courtney
January 8, 2021 11:52 am

The problem is that Greens WILL make the world a much WORSE place while believing they are going to make it a better place, through their futile attempts at “improvement.”

Lrp
Reply to  M Courtney
January 8, 2021 8:26 pm

Oh, but they do; they say by taxing the rich, but they actually mean by taxing middle class

Steve Case
Reply to  Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 7:55 am

Gregory Wrightstone January 8, 2021 6:20 am
 (This forms one of the legs of my “no fault” idea to get rid of the co2 fear without crashing our economy. 1) 

Exactly what I copied out to comment on. People who think that Global warming, Climate Change, the Climate Crisis or what ever they are calling it these days is a load of bullshit, need to stop buying into the bullshit.

Carbon dioxide is
  NOT a problem

beng135
Reply to  Steve Case
January 8, 2021 8:43 am

It’s not just not a problem. It’s an absolutely vital ingredient for almost all life. But you knew that…

Steve Case
Reply to  beng135
January 9, 2021 8:47 am

Beng,

Yes, I know that.

Carbon dioxide is
  NOT a problem

That’s a bumper sticker, absolute vital ingredient blah blah blah doesn’t doesn’t fit into just a few words (-: 

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
January 8, 2021 4:53 pm

The fear of CO2 is the problem. How to get rid of that problem (fear) is the question. The fear is based on assumed high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS>2) of CO2. Just keep pointing out the studies showing low estimates of ECS. Show that high ECS values come from the (admitted) parameterization of UN IPCC climate models to get ECSs that “seem about right.”

Steve Case
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 9, 2021 8:42 am

Dave, Thanks for the reply, The Mencken quote is pretty good. Fear has been used as a political tool for a long time. About a third or more of people in the United States have college degrees, and it looks like it doesn’t do them any good when it comes to a functional bullshit detector.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

PCman999
Reply to  Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 10:02 am

He’s just pointing out to those true believers who will never accept that there is no climate crisis that even accepting the CO2 boogy man, they have been conned. If just plant trees, fertilize the ocean (with a big real payback of helping fisheries), replace old powerplants with efficient new ones we’ll get to co2 nirvana without causing a depression and a load of crap renewables that will clog the landfills (all the old turbines and solar panels are already obsolete and their owners will soon be trying to replace them with better more profitable units)

Writing Observer
Reply to  Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 11:41 am

@Gregory – Joe also says that CO2 is not a pollutant. Which it is not.

The solutions that he proposes, for those who do have faith it is a pollutant, are far more rational. Plant a trillion trees, and you have something that is <i>useful</i>. Build stuff with them. Make them into paper (do try to keep it out of the hands of government bureaucrats, though). Or, if you find that you do need more CO2, burn them (preferably in your wood stove, fireplace, or barbecue…).

Blow up, say, a cement plant, and you have less than nothing – you have a mess to clean up.

Nuclear plants, and as much electrification of the energy budget as possible, is also a rational approach. Far less environmental damage from mining the fuel, no <i>actual</i> pollutants in massive quantities to deal with. I prefer thorium as the fuel, however. Not for the usually argued reasons, but for safety. You can’t make thorium go boom. If and when a fruitcake gets hold of it to make a dirty bomb, it is quite easy to make sure you have decontaminated completely – which you cannot do with a persistent nerve or biological agent.

Now, I will note that Joe’s third solution – carbon capture – is ridiculous. Except in a very few instances, it makes no economic sense to capture CO2 emissions.

David A
Reply to  Writing Observer
January 8, 2021 4:48 pm

I took it to mean the trees capture the gas of life.

boffin77
Reply to  Writing Observer
January 9, 2021 8:54 am

Planting trees is good for reducing CO2, if that’s what you want to do, as long as you don’t let the trees subsequently rot or burn.
But planting trees is not good for cooling the planet: trees reduce the albedo of the Earth, and hence cause more direct solar heating. There is a good article in <em>Science</em> (February 2016) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/europe-s-trees-have-been-warming-planet. This is most pronounced in the Boreal forests in the winter. A cleared area, or a burned-over forest, looks white with snow from space, and accordingly reflects a lot of light before it can turn into heat. Plant a zillion trees and that same area looks dark, because it is retaining the sun’s energy.

David A
Reply to  Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 4:46 pm

Gregory, I read it a bit different. Alarmists appear hell bent on political power and so, instead of spending hundreds of billions to trillions, why not just plant trees?

Unfortunately they really don’t want a solution to their crisis, they want to exploit the “crisis” for political power.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  David A
January 8, 2021 8:03 pm

I too love Joe, but the “plant a trillion trees” is nonsense. Where are you going to plant them? There are more forested acres today than there were 100, 200, or 300 years ago. We have too many trees.

I’ve seen well-meaning fools plant trees in deserts, grasslands, wetlands, river delta flats, and other places trees won’t grow. The local NBA franchise promotion offered to plant 3 trees for every 3-point shot made by the team that season. That amounted to ~3,000 trees, or what four treeplanters could plant in one day. Big deal. And they planted them in the Sandy River delta where the winter flood waters washed them all away. Criminy sakes I’m tired of idiotic virtue signalling.

Our forests today are overcrowded with a-historical densities. They need thinning. Otherwise the amount and continuity of fuels lead to megafires. Millions of acres of over-stocked forests burn every year, spewing CO2 and ash into the atmosphere in amounts that dwarf all human CO2 emissions combined. Are your trillion trees forever, or are they going to vaporize (oxidize) in short order?

Most CO2 is sequestered by the oceans, which cover 5/6’s of the planet. Terrestrial sequestration is minor in comparison, forests or no forests.

And CO2 is the essential nutrient of life. It’s a good thing. And CO2 is not warming the globe, IMO. And even if it was, warmer is better.

Joe, you have so much good meteorology to write about. You don’t need to pepper it with cute smarminess that is scientifically unsound and/or just plain absurd. Please don’t. Thank you.

David A
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
January 8, 2021 8:32 pm

Mike, regardless, it is likely the least harmful thing the alarmists could do, so I wish they would buy it.

However their objective is NOT to stop C02 ppm from rising. Fear mongering is far to politically expedient to actually solve anything. Therefore I must say I lean to direct confrontation, and praise for the benefits of C02.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
January 9, 2021 4:29 am

Where are you going to plant them?

Bulldoze all of the solar farms? 😎

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  David Middleton
January 9, 2021 9:46 am

Dear Daves,

I see where you’re coming from, but let’s think this through.

At a tree farm density of 100 stems per acre, a trillion trees would require 10 billion acres. That’s 100 times the area owned by the US Forest Service. Of course, they already have trees. You need land without trees that’s capable of growing them. Total arable farm land in the U.S. is 375 million acres, so you’ll need all that and 30 times more. Actually, there are only 2 billion acres total in the Lower 48, so you would need all that and 5 times more.

It won’t come cheap. People aren’t going to just give you their land. Chances are you’ll need an army to overrun 10 billion acres and drive off the current owners. It might be more cost-efficient to carpet bomb with nukes. The downside to that would be the soil would get poisoned with radioactivity, but all that desert etc. wasn’t going to grow trees anyway. The upside is you would induce Global Nuclear Winter and so the whole warming problem would be solved.

All in all, it seems like a good plan and doable. I’m for it; how about you? We could call it Bastardi’s Final Solution in honor of the dude who thunk it up. Any takers?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
January 9, 2021 10:05 am

Whoops, I made a mistake. There are 61,500,000 acres of arable farm land in the U.S. I overstated by a factor of 6. Also I failed to note that planting trees costs about a buck each for the seedling and the digging, or a $trillion total for a trillion trees. But that’s a trivial matter given all the other expenses.

Everything else I wrote is factually correct, though. Plant those trees, no matter what it costs!

Enginer01
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
January 9, 2021 12:46 pm

keep in mind almost all of Great Britain was in heavy forest before coal and before charcoal took them away.

rleewinters
Reply to  Gregory Wrightstone
January 8, 2021 6:11 pm

Not that it could happen, but what if the anti-CO2 fearmongers were to prevail and were able to forcibly by edict reduce CO2 to half current levels. Could the loss of plant life and lowered greenhouse gas result in cold and starvation when food supplies drop? Do they have a clue that too much of what they consider a good thing could also result in catastrophe. I like the current warm times. I want them to continue for a while.

David A
Reply to  rleewinters
January 9, 2021 3:25 am

“Could the loss of plant life and lowered greenhouse gas result in cold and starvation when food supplies drop? ”

Not could, a magical switch to 205 ppm C02 would result in WW3 within a very short period of time, as hundreds of millions, then billions would be starving.

Fortunately there will be no such drop in C02, and the continued rise is mostly beneficial, and the fail to manifest projected harms decrease exponentially.

Enginer01
January 8, 2021 6:23 am

There is a contest (of sorts) over at E-Catworld.com to explain what the largely unseen newest version of the E-Cat works. I have posted my entry below. Essentially, for those still wishing and hoping for Andrea Rossi to come out with something commercially useful, the latest E-Cat transitions from the original lattice-constrained nuclear transmutations (a-la the Fleischmann-Pons theory) to more of a Zero-Point-Energy from the Vacuum model.
If the latest design works, any discussion of CO2 will be mute.

Enginer0120 hours ago
“Over many thousands of years the Greatest Story Never Told is Humanities’ increasing energy consumption per person and our lack of understanding of what it costs. But that is about to change. CO2, pollution, environmental destruction, per kWh (kilo-watt-hour) are about to go away. Scientists have discovered how to rip an atom apart using smaller-than-microwave vibrations, liberating electrons as electrical currents with no harmful radiation.
The first product using this new physics is is the Leonardo E-Cat, currently undergoing industrial certification. A normal nanowave plasma is fed regular hydrogen, one atom at a time with tremendous, but safe generation of energy. The actual unit, smaller than a kitchen toaster, produces up to 5 kilowatts each hour from a replaceable catalytic fuel cartridge that lasts a year and can power houses, cars, factories and the entire electrical grid when enough modules are assembled together. Commercial units should be available in 2021.
3 Reply•Share ›”

Willis kindly pointed out (in his posting) that while the biological CO2 pump (lower hemisphere) is interesting, the CO2 production is mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. Discussion of the transport mode might be interesting.

TonyL
Reply to  Enginer01
January 8, 2021 8:11 am

*Oh My Gawd*
It’s Baaack!!!!
The Andrea Rossi E-Cat magic energy machine.

For those of you who do not know, a walk down “Memory Lane”:
Way back, around 2010 to 2012 or so, Rossi and his E-Cat got some traction around here. But then, things fell into a pattern, like this:
1) The E-Cat gives a public demonstration and ready to be commercialized *Early Next Year*.
2) Even if something should go wrong, by *Midyear*, at the latest. For Sure!
3) {Early year comes and goes, mid-year comes and goes.} Silence.
4) Late year, a new announcement “E-Cat ready for public demonstration and commercialization, *early next year*”

Year after year after year.
This has been going on since 2010, at least.

The old story was getting, well, old. So something new needed to be done.
The Soap Opera, ~2015 or so.
1) We have a working device. We have investors to fund commercialization. Demonstration, first quarter, next year.
2) One of my investors is trying to steal my invention away from me.
3) I rigged the demonstration of the E-Cat to fail so the investor would lose interest and sell out.
It worked, I have full control of my invention back.
4) Public demonstration and commercialization early in the new year.

Anybody else remember Rossi and his E-Cat? Chime in!

beng135
Reply to  TonyL
January 8, 2021 8:45 am

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. E-Cat should be put to rest.

Scissor
Reply to  TonyL
January 8, 2021 11:34 am

Who can forget Rossi’s discussion with Galileo?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  TonyL
January 8, 2021 11:57 am

I don’t remember it, but the first thing that jumped out at me was the “fed regular hydrogen” part. So we’d still be using fossil fuels, to produce hydrogen to “feed” to the monster. End of credibility.

MarkW
Reply to  Enginer01
January 8, 2021 8:52 am

Before we show how it works, shouldn’t we have some definitive evidence that it works in the first place?

rbabcock
Reply to  Enginer01
January 8, 2021 8:57 am

Tom Darden of Industrial Heat is my neighbor. He never wanted to talk about cold fusion so I can’t comment one way or another on this. The fact he bailed does say something. Not sure if this is so great why it has taken so long to get to market.

Enginer01
Reply to  rbabcock
January 8, 2021 10:55 am

The New E-Cat is unlike the old. It is NOT cold fusion. It is not even LENR. By the way, LENR does work, it’s just not commercially viable.
The new E-Cat SKL works more like Lockheed Martin’s Patent US 9,502,202 B2 using nano-metric microwaves. No matter waves. Just electrons. DO hold your breath-

MarkW
Reply to  Enginer01
January 8, 2021 2:05 pm

In other words, everybody was right when they stated that ECat doesn’t work.
So he’s come up with a new scam.

Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 6:35 am

“(or anyone. I simply observe, but forth ideas…”
Me, too.

Nuclear doesn’t accomplish much unless and until the transportation sector gets electrified – and the extractive mess and expense of that pretty much means never..

CarbonCaptureSequestration will be insanely expensive, difficult to retrofit to existing power generation and send rates a mile (0.62 km) high.

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.

2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires “extra” energy which it gets from

3) the terrestrial surface radiating that “extra” energy as a near ideal .95 emissivity black body which

4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules.

1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change.

All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K

WUWT Bastardi loop.jpg
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 7:08 am

Nick, starting at point 2, “extra energy”, you go badly astray. The radiative gas molecules in the atmosphere are the temperature of the gases around them. Usually colder than the surface that is warmed by the sun. With IR leaving the surface proportional to Thot^4-Tcold^4. No “extra” energy is involved, only some extra temperature to get rid of the same amount of heat.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 8, 2021 12:19 pm

Thot 396 upwelling – Tcold 333 downwelling = 63 is not “net”, it’s the work required of a refrigeration loop to create that temperature difference, i.e. move energy from the cold to the hot. And without 396 ideal BB upwelling neither of them exist.
BTW what if the earth w/o atmos becoming like moon?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 3:30 pm

That is convoluted thinking Nick. 396 w/Sq.M is emitted by a BB temp of 16 C and 333 is emitted by a BB temp of 3 C. The net of 63. W/sqM is the amount of heat that would transfer between two walls having those temperatures. Of course with no radiative gas CO2 or H20 of some intermediate temperature between them, just N2, O2, or a vacuum….

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 3:46 pm

your Earth/Moon question….without an atmosphere, the Earth would have a lower Albedo than its present .3, about .12 like the moon, assuming the oceans all evaporated and are lost to outer space, So it would reflect less incoming sunlight and be hotter than at present.

Here’s one for you….if the atmosphere was only Nitrogen and Oxygen, containing no greenhouse gases like water vapor or CO2 to radiate heat into space, the atmosphere would be the same temperature from bottom to top…..think about that….and the temperature would be what ?

David A
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 8, 2021 4:56 pm

I would think the density of the atmosphere would seek a thermodynamic equilibrium, yet, low in the atmosphere, more molecules in the same cubic meter, even if each is vibrating at the same energy as each molecule higher up, will register higher on a thermometer due to the increase in molecules striking the thermometer.

Atmospheric density matters, and a denser atmosphere holds more heat, even if each molecule is vibrating with the same energy.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  David A
January 9, 2021 10:53 am

Well, I was hoping to incite a response riot, but apparently nobody is reading…..I read that somewhere, but personally, I think that the atmospheric temperature profile in a pure N2 atmosphere would be simply the adiabatic lapse rate, because it is the thermodynamic result of molecules gaining or losing energy when they move up or down in a gravitational field. Nothing to do with radiation of the gases, all radiation would be from the surface.

Gilbert K.Arnold
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 8:02 am

Nick: minor nit: .62km does not equal 1 mile…. 1 mile = 1.62 km…. “it’s worse than we thought”™

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Gilbert K.Arnold
January 8, 2021 10:05 am

1.609344

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gilbert K.Arnold
January 8, 2021 10:46 am

0.62 km = 0.39 mi

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Gilbert K.Arnold
January 8, 2021 12:23 pm

Yes, brain/finger fart. m = 3.28 ft, km = 3,280 ft, km = 3280/5280 = .62 mile.
Nasa says ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. Ponder how thin that is.
It’s 65 miles between the Springs and Denver.
Molecules cease to exit around 32 km or 20 miles. Thin^3.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 8:55 am

Blankets don’t create energy, yet they manage to keep people warm.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2021 12:04 pm

Now replace the person with a rock, and see if it keeps the rock warm. “People” are a heat source. The blanket analogy isn’t very good, since the Earth is, for all practical purposes, not the heat “source.”

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 8, 2021 2:07 pm

Last time I checked, the sun was warming the earth everyday.
Put a sunlamp under that blanket along with the rock.

Ed Bo
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 9, 2021 11:28 am

AiNS: A person is a “source” of thermal energy because it metabolizes the chemical energy in food and oxygen. The earth is equally a “source” of thermal energy because it absorbs and converts the electromagnetic energy in solar radiation. They are directly comparable.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2021 12:34 pm

The thermal resistance of blankets trap mostly the non-radiative energy just like the insulated walls of a house.
Q = 1/R A (Thot – Tcold)
If R increases dT increases and for a given Tcold, T hot increases.
Consider your furnace thermostat fixed, 70 inside, 30 out, 40 dT and increase R from 6 to 12. Inside goes to 110. Or furnace Q gets cut in half.
Go ask a heat exchanger engineer how that finned and fanned condensing coil of an AC system works? or a car radiator? or that massive air cooled steam condenser on Comanche unit 3? (Worked three months on startup)

Energy leaves the surface of the earth by the five primary heat transfer processes, non-radiative, i.e. conduction, convection (natural), advection (forced), latent (evaporation & condensation) and radiation.
These five heat transfer processes work together and in concert and radiation does not function independently from the others.
When the non-radiative processes increase, e.g. from mechanical fans (wind) or water sprays (storms) that in turn cools the system and reduces the amount of radiation.
Emissivity is the ratio between the total energy absorbed/emitted and that emitted by radiation alone.
If a contiguous media participating through non-radiative heat transfer processes cools the system emissivity must be less than 1.0 and not a black body.
Since the system cannot upwell energy as a radiative black body, there is no “extra” energy for the GHGs to absorb and emit, no GHG warming and no man-caused climate change.
BTW I have already demonstrated this by experiment not just once, but fiveth.

Earth Heating PPt Video 021518.jpg
beng135
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 8:58 am

Nuclear doesn’t accomplish much unless and until the transportation sector gets electrified – and the extractive mess and expense of that pretty much means never.

It’s not an all or nothing issue. City transportation can be electrified more easily than vast rural areas — earlier cities were electrified to a large extent. Certainly now would require major technical & social changes, but could be done. Major rail lines can be and some are already electrified.

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 10:37 am

“… and send rates a mile (0.62 km) high.”

This is an important point that often gets overlooked. The major advantage of fossil fuels is the high energy density. That results in work being done inexpensively. If taxes, and sequestration costs are piled on, then work costs more. That is to say, if gasoline (petrol) costs more, your work commute and vacation costs you a lot more of your disposable income, and things you want to buy become more expensive. Taken to an extreme, fossil fuels lose the advantage of the high energy density and things like bird-choppers and electrified roof shingles become competitive. However, the end result is that people have less disposable income, (while governments have more tax income) and the living standard and quality of life will decline — unless you are in the group living off the government dole.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 8, 2021 12:09 pm

To clarify, things like bird-choppers and electrified roof shingles will NEVER be “competitive.” They can only be given the APPEARANCE of being competitive, in the same vein that an 85-year old with bad knees can be “competitive” with an Olympic track runner, if you chain the Olympic track runner to a six ton concrete block.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 9, 2021 12:58 pm

I resemble that remark! 🙂

Ed Bo
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 8, 2021 6:54 pm

Nick:

Why do you continue to spam us with your confusion and ineptitude? As always, your errors are very basic and egregious.

1) The moon, without an atmosphere, is actually is overall much colder (and therefore lower surface energy level) than the earh, even though it absorbs, as you acknowledge, absorbs a higher density of solar radiation. Its greater variation is due to its much longer days, and thinner layer (and so lower thermal capacitance) responding to the diurnal cycle.

2) If you had paid attention in your first heat transfer course, you would have understood that “radiative exchange” is a the very core of radiation heat transfer. It does not require any “extra energy” as you mistakenly assert.

If you had paid attention in your first thermodynamics class, you would have understood that thermodynamic efficiency is the percentage of energy from a hot source that can be converted to organized work. Pure heat transfer does not generate any work, so has 0% thermodynamic efficiency. What you mistakenly call “100% efficient” is actually just conservation of energy in the transfer from hot to cold.

3) Any engineering reference will show you that the emissivities of common surface substances like water, soil, and vegetation are indeed around 0.95. If this is horribly wrong as you claim, then engineers have been making fundamental errors in their thermal designs for over a century now. Where are the resulting disasters?

4) While it is true that, for a given power input, an object with other heat transfer output modes will be at a lower temperature than one with radiative output only, you draw a laughably wrong conclusion from this.

You think that the radiative output of the object at this ALREADY LOWERED temperature is reduced even further! You are double-counting here. To take an engineering case, let’s say you have a black-anodized metal heat sink with a reported IR emissivity of 0.95. Adding forced convection reduces the temperature from 60C to 40C, which does reduce the radiative output. But the radiative output at 40C (313K) is still 95% of that of an ideal blackbody at that temperature: 0.95 * Sigma * 313^4.

Similarly, if you use a typical surface temperature of 15C (288K), this temperature is lower than it would be in the absence of convective and evaporative losses, but the upward radiative output is still 95% of blackbody: 0.95 * Sigma *288^4. This is easily measured, and has often been.

You keep claiming that: “Emissivity is the ratio between the total energy absorbed/emitted and that emitted by radiation alone.” I have repeatedly asked you for a single credible reference that gives this definition, and for some strange reason, you repeatedly fail to supply one. I wonder why.

Your confusions and errors are in turn annoying and amusing, but mostly annoying, especially as you keep copy-and

Greg
January 8, 2021 7:14 am

Joe, I would appreciate graphs with labelled axes please. Also to claim the patter you do about CO2 easing off, I think it would be made much more forcefully if you gave more that two years. Why is last year supposed to be representative of a “normal” year?

Here I fitted linear and cosine fn to several years and get a similar early easing of the rise.

comment image
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/co2_daily_2009_fit/

Greg
Reply to  Greg
January 8, 2021 7:17 am

Alert Canada, being high latitude seems better suited to using folded cosine which better suits the annual changes in the Arctic:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/co2_alert_fit/
comment image

Similar dip in the springtime rise. Note the amplitude of the annual cycle there.

It is interesting to speculate what the cause is, but it ain’t COVID shutdowns!

Source links on those pages are now broken , this seems to give all current data including unfiltered 10min flask readings.
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/mlo.html

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
TonyN
Reply to  Greg
January 8, 2021 9:39 am

Thanks for this, Greg. I was about to suggest Pt Barrow, Alaska,which also has a much larger swing than Mauna Loa.

I should also like to ask Willis if he could take a look at the Scripps CO2 measurement process, where the result only is given for dry air samples that have been cooled to within a frew degrees of the freezing point of CO2 to get rid of water vapour. As changes in humidity will result in changes in the real-world original sample volume, and as humididy changes a lot especially in higher latitudes, this could be a contribution to the seasonal swing.

{Sadly Scripps does not publish the atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity and windspeed at the sample sites, from which this volumetric change could be easily established}

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyN
January 8, 2021 10:59 am

“… Pt Barrow, Alaska,which also has a much larger swing than Mauna Loa.”

Why should Pt. Barrow have a larger swing when there is little growing around there? I would expect it to look more like Antarctica, which has a suppressed amplitude. I’m suspicions about the reliability of the Barrow data. I don’t know if the Army base is still there, but when I was there in 1967, they used a lot of propane to incinerate the feces from workers. Walking around outside there was a ubiquitous odor of burning ‘flesh.’ All the homes were heated by natural gas, and the locals used snowmobiles to get around in the Winter and Spring! They burned much of their trash in open burn barrels.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 8, 2021 11:08 am
Jim Ross
Reply to  David Middleton
January 8, 2021 12:09 pm

It is a good question. I can see no evidence that this is related to man-made emissions. It appears to be either due the seasonal cycle being driven by the Boreal forests, as suggested indirectly by Scripps, or it is due to photosysnthesis by phytoplankton in the Arctic arena (and I can provide some evidence for that possibility), or it is a combination of both.

Reply to  Jim Ross
January 8, 2021 12:51 pm

The seasonal cycle is definitely independent of fossil fuel emissions.

Jim Ross
Reply to  David Middleton
January 8, 2021 12:56 pm

I completely agree, and yet Willis is looking for a correlation between the seasonal cycle and emissions variability during the year.

Reply to  Jim Ross
January 8, 2021 6:17 pm

Jim, I’m not “looking for ” anything. I pointed out a correlation between emissions and the seasonal cycle, backed up by facts and data sources. Is that correlation real?

I don’t know. And more to the point, you and David Middleton don’t know either. All that both of you have given are your unsubstantiated and unsupported opinions … you’ll excuse me if I don’t take them seriously.

w.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Ross
January 9, 2021 1:26 pm

Pt. Barrow is at the edge of the tundra, alongside the ocean. They are a long way from any boreal forests.

While the Arctic CO2 may be driven by natural processes, the point I was raising is whether the CO2 monitoring station is corrupted by all the local emissions from human activities. I also forgot to mention that there is a commercial airport on the edge of town and a military airstrip farther up the peninsula, nearer the monitoring station.

The locality is not immune from human influence, requiring the burning of more gas for heating in the Winter, and using more electricity for light in the Winter also.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 9, 2021 6:59 pm

Clyde, I’ve said it before but it bears repeating. Scientists may often be mistaken, but they are rarely idiots.

First, the station is a good ways from any human sources. It’s surrounded by water on all sides. And prevailing winds are off the ocean.

comment image

Next, do you truly think they are unaware of what the wind direction does to the CO2 measurements? If so, here’s a document called “DEPENDENCE OF CO2, AEROSOL, AND OZONE CONCENTRATIONS ON WIND DIRECTION AT BARROW, ALASKA DURING WINTER“.

w.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 10, 2021 11:07 am

Willis,

Thanks for finding and sharing the link about measurements at Barrow.

There are a couple of out-takes that I think are worth noting:
“The aerosol analyses support the hypothesis that Arctic haze results from advection of aerosols to the Arctic from European or North American anthropogenic sources. CO2 results suggest two possible sources for the higher concentrations: transfer from the ocean through annual sea ice to the Arctic atmosphere or advec-tion from mid-latitude anthropogenic sources similar to that for the Arctic haze.” Building on that, “A second possible source of CO2 ‘north’ of Barrow is advection from mid-latitude anthropo- genic sources, primarily the northeastern U.S. and western Europe, to the Arctic.”

This seems to suggest that neither the boreal forests, tundra, or Barrow are the source of the high CO2 concentrations! That then brings us back to the conundrum of how <<5% of the total carbon cycle seems to have an outsized impact on the high annual concentrations of CO2, and high seasonal variability of the Arctic!

If there is some amplification mechanism at work in the Arctic, looking for an obvious influence of the COVID shutdowns might be more fruitful if the Barrow/Alert data were examined.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 12, 2021 11:41 am

Clyde, regarding how the <<5% of anthropogenic contribution can affect the levels, please see my comment here.

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 8, 2021 6:28 pm

Clyde, this is another of the curiosities of the CO2 cycle. Over at my post I put up the “carpet diagram” of CO2. It clearly shows the highest variation and the highest concentration up north and the lowest down south. Here it is again:

comment image

To my knowledge, nobody has a very convincing explanation of why that might be the case. Yes, the biggest sink is the southern ocean, but still … in any case I see no reason to be “suspicious” of the Barrow data.

w.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 9, 2021 6:07 pm

Willis,
Things get curiouser and curiouser! NOAA claims that “Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion are the main source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” Since most fossil fuel combustion occurs where people and industry are located, I would expect that the ‘control knob’ controlling global temperature would be greatest in mid-latitudes. Yet, CO2 seems to have the highest concentrations in the far north! This is even more curious since cold water makes a good sink for CO2 because of the high solubility of CO2 in cold water. So, the claim is, humans are heating the Earth through the release of CO2, but it shows up in greatest concentration not where is it produced, but where it is supposedly being removed from the air! What’s wrong with this picture?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 9, 2021 8:20 pm

Thanks, Clyde. Anthropogenic CO2 is only something like 5% of the total CO2 … not sure why you’d think this would affect the total much.

w.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 10, 2021 10:09 am

You remarked, “not sure why you’d think this would affect the total much.”

That seems to be the crux of the matter. The total is impacted by sources that swamp anthropogenic CO2, yet the alarmists focus on the anthropogenic increases. My concern is whether local anthropogenic sources could be impacting readings before it has a chance to disperse. Something that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread is the possibility that the reason for the higher CO2 levels in the Arctic is that it is being emitted by bacteria in the tundra.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 12, 2021 11:34 am

Clyde, you say:

The total is impacted by sources that swamp anthropogenic CO2, yet the alarmists focus on the anthropogenic increases

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Suppose you have a basin with a drain. You start running water into it. As the water level rises, you get more pressure on the drain, and thus more output. At some point, the amount leaving via the drain is equal to the amount entering, and the level stops rising. Equilibrium.

Now suppose we get a separate hose and start adding just a bit of water, maybe a 20th of water from the big hose.

What will happen? Well, the level in the basin will rise until it reaches a new equilibrium … and if you continue to increase the amount of water in the second hose, the water level will continue to rise.

And that’s how the slow rise in CO2 is happening. The fact that the natural sources are big doesn’t stop the small increasing source from steadily increasing the CO2 level.

w.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 9, 2021 8:26 am

Clyde,
 
My view (hypothesis) is that the reason for the largest seasonal cycle being at Point Barrow (PTB, 71N) is that the dominant control is the photosynthesis/respiration cycle of the boreal forests, which extend from around that latitude down to around 50N, quite possibly supported by a comparable cycle in the oceans at similar latitudes due to phytoplankton. This view is also consistent with Scripps’ explanation that the May start date of the removal of atmospheric CO2 at PTB is due photosynthesis kicking off in the boreal forests. All of the plots here other than a couple which come from NOAA use data from Scripps.
 
So what is the evidence?
 
1.    Watch the video. The primary driver of the changes in atmospheric CO2 is clearly in the range 50-70N latitude, similar to the range of the northern hemisphere (NH) boreal forests.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=lg
2.    Changes in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa (MLO, 31N) appear on the video to be mostly (entirely?) a response to the changes in atmospheric content further north, as they lag in time and extent. If the MLO cycle is primarily due the PTB cycle, but with a time lag, that also explains the smaller cycle at MLO. The lag of MLO relative to PTB is most clearly seen at the minimum value of the respective cycles.
comment image
3.    The seasonal cycle at Alert, Canada (87N) is very slightly smaller than PTB and this is consistent with it being further away from the Canadian boreal forest, and especially so at that longitude (62W).
comment image
4.    Changes in the southern hemisphere (SH) atmospheric CO2 cycle are much smaller, but also show a maximum in the SH wintertime (see David Middleton’s plot), i.e. reflect the same seasonal dependency as in the NH.
5.    So why are the changes much smaller in the SH than the NH? The general view in the literature seems to be that, first, it’s because of the reduced extent of vegetation such as major forests in the SH and, second, in the tropical rain forests (Amazon, West Africa, South East Asia) the temperature does not change much during the year (certainly not as much as in the NH boreal forests) and hence the balance between photosynthesis and respiration is more stable throughout the year.
6.    The 13C/12C ratio of the PTB and MLO CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere during the seasonal cycle, expressed as δ13C, is around -26 per mil, consistent with vegetation being the predominate cause. This ratio is not that different from burning fossil fuels (approx. -28 per mil), but the longer term incremental atmospheric CO2 (year to year, not the seasonal cycle) has a net δ13C of -13 per mil and hence the seasonal cycle and the longer term growth do not have the same δ13C content. This is most clearly shown using the Keeling plot, developed by Charles David Keeling.
comment image
The intercept of the linear fit shows the approximate average value of the δ13C content, but this only works really well if that value is a constant over time. Hence the red and green lines drawn over the data are not curve fits. They are, however, indicative of the true value. Also, remember that the annual cycle also includes a minor influence from the long term trend (the 2 to 2.5ppm/yr growth rate). If you wish to see the content of the annual growth alone, you need to use the data with the annual cycle removed.
comment image
7.    Both δ13C and O2 show seasonal cycles that vary with an almost perfect inverse correlation with CO2: both decrease as CO2 increases and vice versa, consistent with photosynthesis/respiration being the primary cause. Note that the δ13C and δO2/N2 scales are inverted and particularly note that, in both cases, they too reflect the slow-down in CO2 growth that Joe initially raised with his blue lines. I share these plots only so that any speculation that you may want to engage in is consistent with these tight relationships.
8.    Surface ocean waters at high latitudes show a spectacular drop in dissolved CO2 around mid-April (this is a bit further south than Barrow), and hence photosynthesis of phytoplankton could also be a significant factor in the atmospheric CO2 cycle. The following plot takes a while to download, so please be patient if you want to see it. It shows surface ocean pH as well, but only for a limited time period.
https://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/GAKOA
 

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Ross
January 9, 2021 1:55 pm

Jim,
I have a question. You attribute vegetation as the responsible agent for CO2 variations based on the δ13C value. Doesn’t photosynthetic plankton exhibit isotopic fractionation of carbon just as land plants do?

There is not a tree to be seen anywhere around Barrow, and when I left in late-April there was no greening in evidence on the ground, although the days were quite long and patches of bare ground were abundant. With about 1 deg latitude difference between Barrow and the nominal northern edge of the Boreal forest/tundra transition zone (~50 miles south) it appears that the ‘well-mixed’ CO2 is capable of influencing the atmospheric composition for some distance. So, a second question is, how can we be sure that the PTB measurements aren’t being influenced by the heavy use of fossil fuels in the Barrow community, and might otherwise look more like Alert?

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 10, 2021 4:37 am

Clyde,
 
Thank you for your questions.
 
Regarding your first question, yes, this is an important point. As I said in my introduction: “quite possibly supported by a comparable cycle in the oceans at similar latitudes due to [the photosynthesis/respiration cycle of] phytoplankton”. I certainly would not rule it out. One reason why I lean towards vegetation being the dominant control is that the δ13C value for photosynthesis/respiration due to vegetation is pretty well defined and is consistent with the observed atmospheric seasonal cycle, whereas I have not been able to validate the likely impact of phytoplankton processes in atmospheric δ13C terms. It is significantly more complicated than interchange between the atmosphere and the terrestrial biosphere because of additional fractionation considerations (e.g. across the atmosphere/ocean boundary) and values for these are not entirely consistent in the literature.
 
According to NOAA, based on an atmospheric value of -8 per mil, CO2 fluxes from the atmosphere into the oceans would have a δ13C of -10.0 per mil and fluxes from the ocean into the atmosphere would reflect a δ13C of -9.5 per mil. Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
(scroll to bottom of page).
 
For your second question, my plot of atmospheric CO2 for Point Barrow and Alert (point 3) shows that although the extent of the seasonal cycle at Alert is “very slightly smaller than PTB” the differences between it and Point Barrow in terms of overall character are actually minuscule. I view this as strong confirmation that the Point Barrow data have not been significantly corrupted by local effects.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 13, 2021 3:05 am

Since this thread is not completely dead yet, let me add one more piece of evidence regarding possible explanations for the observation that the extent of the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2 is greatest at Point Barrow.

9. The annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 has averaged about 2.5 ppmv/yr over the last decade. This is true everywhere from the South Pole to Alert. It is not constant because it includes fluctuations that correlate with ENSO. However, at Alert (and at Point Barrow) the near flat-topped parts of the annual cycle are broadly consistent with this trend as shown in the figure below. In other words, if the data were detrended, these periods between about December and May would be essentially flat, i.e. zero growth. This indicates that whatever is the primary driver of the annual variation (as opposed to the long-term growth) is inactive during this period.

comment image

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 9, 2021 9:00 am

Sorry, missed off the two plots related to point#7 (which is currently still pending approval).
comment image
comment image

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  TonyN
January 8, 2021 10:59 pm

Gas density changes more significantly than liquids and solids. The number of molecules of whatever in a fixed volume of gas will change with temperature. You should also remove water vapour because that displaces all gases.
If some fool was measuring CO2 at different temperatures and % water vapour, I’d be looking for some rope and a convenient tree limb.
All readings should be done in exactly the same conditions.

TonyN
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 9, 2021 10:22 am

Alexy,

Take your rope to Mauna Loa!

There, they take samples of the atmosphere at varying temperatures and pressures, and then take away a varying quantity of one of the gases. They then measure the ratio of CO2 molecules to the total of the other molecules in this varying sample as a flow, and not a fixed volume.

Effectively, the results will then contain a negative ‘ghost’ of the varying temperature and % water vapour that was in the original atmospheric samples.

Of course if they knew the pressure, temperature and humidity of each sample before they froze it, they could correct for this ‘ghost’ ….but they don’t.

Thus your ‘fools’ ls’ are not complying with your stricture that “All readings should be done in exactly the same conditions”.

Reply to  TonyN
January 9, 2021 11:43 am

Tony, I fear your claims are incorrect. Here’s info direct from the horse’s mouth, emphasis mine

Why do we express the abundance of CO2 as a mole fraction in dry air?

The concentration of a gas is defined formally as the number of molecules per cubic meter. The goal of our measurements is to quantify how much CO2 has been added to, or removed from, the atmosphere. The concentration does not give us that information because it primarily depends on the pressure and temperature, and secondarily on how much the relative abundance of each gas has been diluted by water vapor, which is extremely variable. Only the dry mole fraction reflects the addition and removal of a gas species because its mole fraction in dry air does not change when the air expands upon heating or upon ascending to higher altitude where the pressure is lower. 

As I’ve said before, scientists are sometimes wrong, but they are rarely idiots …

w.

TonyN
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 10, 2021 3:51 am

Willis, thanks for your post .

My point to Alexy is that measuring dry air samples is not the same as measuring real-world air samples.

As I understand it the Scripps process removes one of the very variable gases [i.e. H20] and then reports the fraction of CO2 in the remaining nixture of other gases in the dried sample. This is claimed to be a measure of the increasing amount of CO2 in the real atmosphere, and is used as evidence of man-made climate-change

We see that this dried air measure fluctuates annually, and the amplitude seems to vary with latitude. This is a mystery that to-date has no satisfactory explanation. .

As on the face of it there seems to be a correspondence with humidity at the various sampling sites, one place to look is the effect of removing the highly variable component gas, which has the effect of proportionally changing the ratio of remaining gases in each sample.

We see from the process that there is the assumption that the freezing of the H2O fraction does not also release absorbed CO2.
There is also the assumption that the ratio of the remaining gases are is fixed, which can only really be proved by physical measurement of ALL constituent gases.

[For example creating a molecule of CO2 by combustion will absorb two molecules of O2, thus changing the ratio between all other gases in the atmosphere, and ignoring this effect will cause the CO2 fraction to be overstated]

Anyway, I note from your link that in 2019 Scripps replaced the IR absorbtion instruments (why?) with a new method. Could this new method be used to measure all of the constituent gases in a real atmospheric sample, without needing to remove the most variable and most important climate gas?

Peta of Newark
January 8, 2021 7:34 am

Don’t need to read it all, this says (almost) everything.
Quote:
“”Plant a trillion trees worldwide.“”

Thing is, you don’t even need to plant any IF you do some ‘groundwork’ literally first

That groundwork is in fact very very simple. The raw materials needed are all around us, left, right, forward, back and down. Not up
The machinery needed already exists and spends a significant part of its time sitting idle.

RE-MINERALISE THE SOIL

Pulverised rock from almost anywhere and existing agricultural machinery is all you need.
Bung the peasants a few drops o’ diesel and a bite to eat now & again and they’ll jump at it
Old volcanoes are fantastic sources of what you, me, everyone, The Planet AND Ma Nature needs

The grasses, plants, weeds, moss, slime, maybe even a few triffids & other invasives and then. ultimately the trees will move in.
All without a 2nd thought or even an invitation

And the weather will change. Climate can do what it likes but generally follows weather.

From a yo-yo of minus 5 to plus 35 Celsius daily, you will see 23 Celsius plus/minus three ALL YEAR ROUND

Quit squabbling, comparing willies, admiring computers, passing the buck, being lazy, hiring lawyers & other parasites/trolls and generally trashing Western Economies and their Civilations

just do it
Wake up. Smell the coffee. Dig the dirt##

## The good sort, NOT Climate Science

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
January 8, 2021 7:59 am

Trees are not the biggest sink for CO2 in the northern hemisphere. The cold open waters of the Arctic ocean is. The strongest evidence for this is an exceptionally strong correlation between the Barrow CO2 curve and sea-ice concentration north of 70 degrees. Physically, nearly every molecule of CO2 that reaches the surface of sub-zero (phytoplankten containing) water will be absorbed. Ice does not absorb CO2. CO2 that is being delivered from warmer emission zones to the Arctic, builds up during winter over the sea ice, but is consumed by the cold open water in the summer. There is no accumulation beyond each year. The observed concentration increase is the result of increased emissions from the tropics caused by increased sst.

HenryP
January 8, 2021 7:59 am

heh heh
let me just try again
just one more time

I have explained the problem of the shrinking the CO2 zinc areas recently: Here’s the picture of the temperature of oceans and the Earth over the past 40 years: (I would not go further back with the dates)
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/to:2021/trend

Well, anything that causes more outgassing CO2 is variable, and we know
1) that the temperature of the oceans has risen; HCO3- + heat=> CO2 (g) + OH- (1) So that causes more CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) that the pH of the oceans is going down due to waste water from people, animals and factories; this also causes more CO2 in the atmosphere. Watch reaction (2) below.
3) It will be clear to any good chemist that the amount of CO2 in the air depends a lot on the amount of dissolved bi-carbonate in the sea water
 4) and that the amount of HCO3- again depends on the pH and the amount of carbonate ion CO3 (-2) dissolved in the water. It is also variable, depending on volcanic activities (this is how CO2 got into the air) and other factors.
 Now we get to the real problem that no one has solved. The warming in the NH and SH is not the same. Namely, the difference in warming of the NH and SH  is like 0.8K or 0.9K, taken over the last 40 years. (Look at my graph from woodfortrees.  Interalia, of course, that is also proof that CO2 is not the cause of warming, because CO2 is a diffuse gas). But those lines are still like averages. If we look at the Arctic, we see that it is getting much warmer there, than the average of the NH….

Now: let ‘CO2 zinc’ = the area that is cold enough to dissolve CO2 and form bi-carbonate again, as per reaction: 2H2O + CO2 + cold => <=HCO3- + H3O+ (2)
We can assume that the surface in the SH that serves as CO2 zinc is more or less constant, since the temperature here has not changed much. But in the Arctic, because it has become so much warmer there, and it is still getting warmer, the area of the surface of the water that serves as CO2 zinc is also getting smaller. So, now we’ve been in a loop for 40 or 50 years:
5) the water in the arctic gets warmer, the CO2 zinc there gets smaller, there is less CO2 in the water, reaction (2), and so, more CO2 remains in the atmosphere and the arctic is still getting warmer, etc.
Do you understand now why the CO2 in the atmosphere keeps going up? Taking all these variables into account, I say again that it is not possible to do calculations and say how much CO2 is released into the air by humans. There are too many unknowns/variables in the equation. I would also say that the rise of CO2 is more likely to be due to the heat from the inside out (who says that the cooling of the earth since Genesis  is exactly linear or exactly bi-nominal?)  And we also have the waste water of people, factories and animals, which is mostly acidic, some even really acidic.. That stream never stops: HCO3- + H3O+  => =< CO2 + 2H2O (2)

HenryP
January 8, 2021 8:03 am

I have explained the problem of the shrinking the CO2 zinc areas recently: Here’s the picture of the temperature of oceans and the Earth over the past 40 years: (I would not go further back with the dates) https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/to:2021/trend
Well, anything that causes more outgassing CO2 is variable, and we know
1) that the temperature of the oceans has risen; HCO3- + heat=> CO2 (g) + OH- (1) So that causes more CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) that the pH of the oceans is going down due to waste water from people, animals and factories; this also causes more CO2 in the atmosphere. Watch reaction (2) below.
3) It will be clear to any good chemist that the amount of CO2 in the air depends a lot on the amount of dissolved bi-carbonate in the sea water
 4) and that the amount of HCO3 again depends on the pH and the amount of carbonate ion CO3 (-2) dissolved in the water. It is also variable, depending on volcanic activities (this is how CO2 got into the air) and other factors.
 Now we get to the real problem that no one has solved. The warming in the NH and SH is not the same. Namely, the difference in warming of the NH and SH  is like 0.8K or 0.9K, taken over the last 40 years. (Look at my graph from woodfortrees.  Interalia, of course, that is also proof that CO2 is not the cause of warming, because CO2 is a diffuse gas). But those lines are still like averages. If we look at the Arctic, we see that it is getting much warmer there, than the average of the NH….

Now: let ‘CO2 zinc’ = the area that is cold enough to dissolve CO2 and form bi-carbonate again, as per reaction: 2H2O + CO2 + cold => <=HCO3- + H3O+ (2)
We can assume that the surface in the SH that serves as CO2 zinc is more or less constant, since the temperature here has not changed much. But in the Arctic, because it has become so much warmer there, and is still getting warmer, the area of the surface of the water that serves as CO2 zinc is also getting smaller. So, now we’ve been in a loop for 40 or 50 years:
5) the water in the arctic gets warmer, the CO2 zinc there gets smaller, there is less CO2 in the water, reaction (2), and so, more CO2 remains in the atmosphere and the arctic is still getting warmer, etc.
Do you understand now why the CO2 in the atmosphere keeps going up? Taking all these variables into account, I say again that it is not possible to do calculations and say how much CO2 is released into the air by humans. There are too many unknowns/variables in the equation. I would also say that the rise of CO2 is more likely to be due to the heat from the inside out (who says that the cooling of the earth since Genesis  is exactly linear or exactly bi-nominal?)  And we also have the waste water of people, factories and animals, which is mostly acidic, some even really acidic.. That stream never stops: HCO3- + H3O+  => =< CO2 + 2H2O (2)

Rich Davis
Reply to  HenryP
January 8, 2021 9:47 am

Zinc?

I believe you mean sink?

HenryP
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 8, 2021 9:51 am

Sorry. Yes. Lost in translation (from Dutch/ Flemish)

Reply to  HenryP
January 8, 2021 10:55 am

Do you realize that the world’s oceans have massive amounts of limestone? Any acidic pollution by man is only going to be local until all that limestone reacts with any acid – man made or otherwise?

Rich Davis
Reply to  HenryP
January 8, 2021 2:07 pm

Afrikaans isn’t it?

Groete!

HenryP
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 9, 2021 1:28 am

Hi Rich. Yes, it is Afrikaans. But it is a double boo-boo. What I mean is ‘sink’. And even in Afrikaans it is spelled the same…sorry. In Dutch it is zink. I think..

@ T.C. Clark

Even local contamination would cause an immediate reaction:
 HCO3- + H3O+ => =< CO2 + 2H2O (2)
and once hit by the UV from the sun on the (local) top layers the extra CO2 will gas out.

On the long term, we are contaminating the seas and the oceans causing a slight drop in pH. How much it is? I don’t know yet. But whichever: it will cause more CO2 in the air, and most probably much more than what is coming from our emissions’.
I have been taking a sample every year now from the coast when we go for holidays. I have 4 samples….

Reply to  HenryP
January 8, 2021 10:13 am

I believe your auto correct has shafted you as it does many of us. The use of the word zinc is inappropriate, it should be sink

HenryP
Reply to  wsbriggs
January 9, 2021 1:29 am

Yes, thanks.

Jim Ross
January 8, 2021 8:07 am

Joe,
 
Your blue lines are great. I have raised the issue of a slow-down in growth rate in the January-March period at Mauna Loa several times here, but never got any closer to a good explanation. I even raised it with Scripps a few years ago and their response was also unhelpful other than confirming that they were unaware of any published papers that had considered it.
 
A key observation, in my view, is that the slow-down is generally less obvious or even absent in the year following a strong El Niño. You can see this on the following plot. The seasonal cycle shows a flattening for the Jan-Feb period for 2013/14, 2014/15, 2016/17 and 2017/18. However, 2015/16 barely shows any change in growth rate, as well as reflecting an increase in overall growth for that autumn/winter period (September – May).
 
comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Ross
January 8, 2021 11:04 am

One possible explanation is that the January-February cold inhibits the activity of bacteria decomposing organic material on the ground.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 8, 2021 12:13 pm

Thank you for this suggestion. I would certainly buy the view that this is the reason for the near ‘flat-topped’ response at Point Barrow and it is possible that the response at Mauna Loa is reflected in the variations seen at Point Barrow.

KevinM
January 8, 2021 8:10 am

” I also believe that the pattern we are in can lead to a lot of snow in the south and the east,”
I understand north and south in a global sense, but east just keeps going. 🙂

[please enter your email correctly so we don’t have to fix the spelling to get you approved-mod]

January 8, 2021 8:12 am

The average world temp went down slightly from about 1940 to 1980 while CO2 increased. The current “Modern Warming Period” is no different from the past warming periods for about the last 10,000 years. The southern tip of Greenland was green 1,000 years ago. The burden is still on the “warmists” to explain the magic of CO2 to warm the planet….and using fraudulent “hockey puck” graphs is not helpful. This century is the time according to past history for the temp to turn downward…..cooler temps ahead….keep cool…..Grand Solar Minimum.

commieBob
January 8, 2021 8:32 am

Hi Joe. I agree with your four points.

I’m up to ass in alligators right now so I won’t go looking for some research I found but …

1 – The deep ocean has way more CO2 than the atmosphere.
2 – At the pressures involved in the deep ocean, the solubility of CO2 is determined by temperature.
3 – A temperature change of a decimal of a degree in the deep ocean decreases the solubility of CO2 enough so it could explain all the modern increase in atmospheric CO2.

It could be that, because of Henry’s Law, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is irrelevant. It’s complicated because Henry’s Law applies to the upper part of the ocean. I’m not at all sure how or if it applies to the deep ocean.

Points 1 and 2 should be uncontroversial.

Point 3 depends on what actually happens in the deep ocean when the solubility of CO2 changes.

Richard M
Reply to  commieBob
January 8, 2021 9:56 am

There’s another factor important to the issue. Evidence supports an increase in ocean salinity. More saline water takes more energy to evaporate and hold less CO2. Hence it will warm more and release more CO2. Note the nice correlation between increasing salinity and SSTs in the Gulf of Mexico since the depths of the LIA.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4/figures/2

HenryP
Reply to  Richard M
January 8, 2021 10:15 am

also true

KevinM
Reply to  Richard M
January 8, 2021 11:49 am

Has ocean salinity increased perpetually? I thought river runoff added while nothing really subtracts. I’m asking from ignorance, I really don’t know.

Richard M
Reply to  KevinM
January 8, 2021 4:20 pm

See the graph I linked to earlier. It shows salinity varies quite a bit on century time scales. I suspect it has feedbacks that keep it pretty consistent over longer time periods.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  KevinM
January 9, 2021 6:43 pm

The great underground salt beds in the world, that now supply most of the road salt and some of the dietary salt, is your subtraction — on a geologic time scale. Sometimes the buoyant salt detaches from its origin bed and moves upward to form a dome that is often a good impervious trap for petroleum.

fretslider
January 8, 2021 8:39 am

Why has CO2 continued to rise during lockdown(s)?

People are drinking more, in some places an awful lot more.

Has XR recommended banning carbonated beverages?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
January 8, 2021 11:08 am

The fermentation of alcoholic beverages also releases CO2!

MarkW
January 8, 2021 8:49 am

My first thought was that if it’s the oceans that are driving the seasonal variation, then since there is more ocean in the southern hemisphere, then CO2 should be higher during southern summer than it is during northern summer.

Could there be something that makes the southern oceans warm more slowly?

I haven’t run an analysis, but it seems to me that the southern oceans are on average, deeper than the northern oceans. There is no place like the Gulf of Mexico or the Mediterranean and Black Seas in the southern hemisphere. Also most of the really big lakes are in the northern hemisphere.

January 8, 2021 8:56 am

Excellent common-sense article by Joe. The oceans are the earth’s largest heat capacitor, of which its vast thermodynamic properties are far from being fully realized. We don’t even know how many undersea volcanoes exist. In the meantime I’m enjoying the ever-so-slight global warming. Humans, after all, are tropical in nature — and we learned to wear clothes as we gradually adapted to colder climates.

dk_
January 8, 2021 9:12 am

An inadvertent socio-economic experiment has produced a great reduction in transportation fuel consumption, resulting in little or no change in the rate of, demonstrably quite small, increase of atmospheric CO2. Meanwhile, the average temperature is steady or slightly reducing. If these two items are not really good news, I’m not sure what news would qualify as good.

menace
January 8, 2021 9:39 am

“Clearly the slope from the min to max last year before the late winter level off ( then as you can see it resumes) was more sharply up than it has been this year. ”

Maybe but if you compare each of the first 5 points in 2019 with the first 5 in 2020 you see the 2020 points are within a variation of ~+/- 0.1 (of the major tics or 1/2 of the minor tics, the tic labels were cutoff) of what you’d expect based on the overall linear trend.

The slope from the peak in 2020 versus 2019 (the peak appears to occur mid-May which would be the peak of the lock-downs I think) appears to be slightly lower than the slope from Jan-Jan (pre-lock-downs). I just did a crude measurement by shifting the edge of an index card – the difference in slope is such that the data peak in 2020 appears to be roughly 0.08 units below what would be expected based on applying the Jan-Jan slope. So there is some small decrease occurring.

However the year-to-year linear trend is only about 0.52 units so if the trough in the dip in fossil fuel (antropogenic) CO2 emissions was 30% below the normal level we are only looking for a dip of about 1.6 units in the data. Subtracting the 0.08 measured gives a shortfall of 0.08 This is not that far “above the noise” so it might be plausible that residual difference was “lost in the noise”.

I’d expect to see the maximum anthropogenic emissions dip due to CoVID occur either at the peak (May) or at the next point after the peak (June). While the May-May slope is noticeably lower as I just described, the June-June slope is less noticeably lower (I eyeball that the June 2020 value is perhaps only 0.04 units lower than expected.) So to me the anthropogenic emissions looked like it dipped only ~15% in the data.

A better comparison would be to try to do a reconstruction of what the expected curve from March to Dec 2020 should look like and overlay that prediction on the data. This would require more than 2 years of data to evaluate the annual anthropogenic slope plus the average year-to-year sinusoid for the nominal natural seasonal variations.

HenryP
January 8, 2021 9:42 am

Hans Erren

Now you say:’ warming accounts only for 16 ppm rise per degC’

I am sure I have told at least 5 times that if you look at a mathematical equation with more than at least 5 variables (see my previous comment), you cannot ‘calculate’ that warming accounts for 16 ppm per degree C. In your calculations you (and Ferdinand) never even realized and agreed that the surface of sinc area available is an important factor.
Apart from that, I am sure there are more than the 5 variables that I mentioned, but vegetation and human emission are so insignificantly small compared to the total of all carbonates dissolved in the oceans that one really can say that it is close to zero. In fact, I think it was Ian Plimer who calculated that in the explosion of that volcano in Iceland, more carbonates were emitted tin a few days than was saved by (poor) human kind, who still do not realize that CO2 is a complete non-issue with regard to the warming of the earth.

January 8, 2021 9:45 am

😀 Spain seem to have lost all it’s CO2. or what is the reason for the temperature record of -35,8 °C in Vega de Liordes ?
Source
It’s the deepest ever measured temperature in Spain.
An English source
And they have snow with no end in Spain

January 8, 2021 9:48 am

The atmosphere warms and then the oceans warm and then CO2 increases….warming produces CO2 rather than CO2 producing warming. There are published charts that go back millions of years that purport to show the relationship between CO2 and temp. How accurate are the charts? I don’t know but the charts clearly show NO correlation between CO2 and temp. I am not planting any trees….the earth is already “greening” in the semi-arid areas. Greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their units….the International Space Satation and nuclear submarines have much higher CO2 levels than our environment. According to history…past cycles…the next concern is the return of another Little Ice Age.

KevinM
Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 8, 2021 12:00 pm

-1 for
warming produces CO2 rather than CO2 producing warming”
then
“NO correlation between CO2 and temp”
in same paragraph.

Reply to  KevinM
January 8, 2021 2:06 pm

Seems contradictory? No, it’s time scale and events. Volcanoes can overwhelm with CO2 but the SO2 blocks the sun and cooling results. The multi- million year charts show all possibilities……CO2 and temp go up and down together and other times go opposite but the scale is millions of years – not hundreds or thousands.

Robert of Texas
January 8, 2021 9:59 am

If you burn enough fuels (as in carbon based fuels), then you will (temporarily) increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t really doubt that.

What I question is what happens to the CO2 next, how quickly, and is any of it bad?

If the oceans are out-gassing CO2 it is because the oceans are getting warmer. If they are getting warmer then the CO2 they are out-gassing didn’t cause the initial rise in temperatures. Unless we find evidence of run-away warming in the past, it isn’t causing much of anything except more CO2 in the atmosphere.

That alone should tell us that CO2 is not the all-important “greenhouse” gas it is being made out to be – the fact that run-away warming does not occur. If it did occur, it is still natural.

CO2 is consumed by many living things, and the more CO2 available the better these live forms seem to thrive. Oxygen breathing animals are not sensitive to such low levels of CO2 which makes sense because they evolved along with the rising and declining concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (or water). Plants growing healthier, faster, and larger seems beneficial to me. Eventually they grow fast enough to “sequester” whatever CO2 is available.

The planet is warming – I accept that. Is it bad? Not that I can tell. The warming is tiny where it is already hot and larger where it’s way too cold – that seems beneficial to me. It would not surprise me at all if certain dry areas become wetter – like the Southeast U.S. – contrary to computer models. We know it was wetter in the past and there has to be a natural reason for this. A warmer planet might drive a stronger water cycle bringing moisture to now dry areas. We know the Shara Desert once hosted forests and grasslands – maybe it will again given enough time.

We also know that EVERY SINGLE AGW PREDICTION of catastrophe has failed. So why would anyone put their faith in a hypothesis that is always wrong?

Anders Rasmusson
January 8, 2021 11:24 am

Fossil fuels have been inactive in the current carbon cycle, the atmosphere, land & oceans, for a very, very long time. 

By combusting those fuels a corresponding amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, have been added to the atmosphere. 

The amount of CO2 therefore have to increase in the atmosphere. By atmospheric analysis we do not find all of the CO2 corresponding to the emitted amount from the fossil fuels combusted, then part of the CO2 have been transfered from the atmosphere to the land and the oceans.

We also observe that the globe is greening and the oceans are net CO2 sinks as reported from investigations from the late 1950’s to 2000 : “…. estimate for the global ocean uptake flux is consistent with the values of 2.07 +-0.6 Pg C /year …” , see 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Taro_Takahashi/publication/232259896_Global_sea_air_CO2_flux_based_on_climatological_surface_ocean_pCO2_and_seasonal_biological_and_temperature_effects,&nbsp;

and a more resent report, see

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18203-3.pdf .

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

HenryP
Reply to  Anders Rasmusson
January 9, 2021 3:27 am

‘The amount of CO2 therefore have to increase in the atmosphere’ (because of man)

No, Anders. CO2 in the atmosphere is determined by Henry’s Law.
pH, temperature and pressure and the relevant reaction constants for all reactions of the carbonates all have an influence, more so than any emission can do.

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  HenryP
January 9, 2021 4:12 am

Henry, the CO2 balance for the atmospheres, at any timescale, years or decades, verifies that there is a net transfer from the atmosphere to the land and oceans because the anthropogenic CO2 flow is bigger than the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, the natural CO2 flow through the atmosphere is very big but the net flow is from the atmosphere to land & oceans. The natural flow fluctuations are the reasons for the atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuations on top of the steady increase.

Henry’s law and the ocean “CO2-chemistry” is applicable as well. The ocean will give the atmosphere 10 to 20 ppm CO2/°C as can be seen in the graph by Ahlbeck in :
http://john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm.

All this is also confirmed, as in my link above, by hundreds of thousands of ocean measurements by T Takahashi.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

HenryP
Reply to  Anders Rasmusson
January 9, 2021 6:07 am

Anders

I explained lower on the thread that there are at least 5 variables that I know of. There are probably more. If you have a mathematical equation with 5 unknowns, you cannot ‘solve’ the problem. Anyone who says he can does not understand the problem. One of the 5 variables that I mention, that has a major influence on the CO2 in the atmosphere, is the decrease of the sink areas in the arctic. It (this effect of this decrease) has have never even been investigated….

So how can anyone make the claims that you make>?

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  HenryP
January 9, 2021 7:28 am

Henry, “ …. the decrease of the sink areas in the arctic. It (this effect of this decrease) has have never even been investigated….“

By the known flow of fossil fuels combusted, we know the CO2 flow to the the atmosphere.

By the atmospheric CO2 measurements we know the accumulated CO2 amount/time.

One equation, the CO2 balance for the atmosphere, tells us that the nature (land & oceans) is a net sink – CO2 is transfered from the atmosphere to the nature :

Fossil_In + Nature_In = Nature_Out + Accumulated

==>

Nature_Out – Nature_In = Fossil_In – Accumulated

The right hand part is bigger than zero, then the Nature is a net sink whatever is going on there ((Nature_Out – Nature_In) is bigger than zero as per the component balance).

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

n.n
January 8, 2021 1:23 pm

2021: a climate oddity

Dan Mullock
January 8, 2021 1:53 pm

I have a few non-original questions/comments re CO2, temperature and its impact:

  • as discussed below, if CO2 is causing temps to rise, then why is the very long term correlation between the two so poor?
  • what do the ice cores show as CO2 since 1958? why would we use any other source when discussing centuries and millenia of CO2 and temperatures? Is there an agreement problem in ice core data since 1958 versus other sources of data?
  • can we experimentally and repeatedly create higher temps SOLELY with higher CO2 and constant radiant input/output in a large, controlled atmosphere space, with all other inputs are controlled? If we cannot physically model this, why?
  • is it possible that any recent increase in temps are simply a coincidence that is unrelated to changes in CO2? The multi-millenial experience is that temp and CO2 have not moved in lockstep, for ex the Medievel Warming Period. Perhaps we are just between Ice Ages and temps typically rise then, and rising CO2 post WW2 is just an unrelated coincidence.
  • How dangerous is a low amount of warming? The world continues to green, and output of food grains over the last thirty years has grown on a per capita rate steadily, so we have more food available than ever before in history, and more than the growth in population. We are becoming less hungry. And we are using inputs of chemicals and water to achieve this at growth rates less than the productivity of the output, and on fewer acres of land. Genetic modification of food crops promises continued increase in productivity with less inputs, including in low water/high CO2 environments. Death rates from weather related events are the lowest in record, and life expectancies are the best they have ever been. life on earth seems to be on an improvement trajectory, not becoming worse.

I am willing to believe that CO2 rises could affect the climate, but CO2 has doubled and temps might be slightly warmer and well below the average of the most prominent models, which have generally done a poor job of forecasting long term temp change. So we should be sceptical that in fact that human caused global warming is happening and it is bad for us, but it might be. We just don’t know and we continue to improve our control over our life sustaining resources despite changes in global climate.

Reply to  Dan Mullock
January 8, 2021 4:46 pm

Over geologic time scales, the configurations of the oceans and continents (plate tectonics) have been the primary drivers of climate change.

The highest resolution ice core, Law Dome DE08, shows a very good correlation to instrumental data. Although most of this is from firn data. I think the youngest actual ice measurements reflect CO2 in the 1940’s. Ice cores are very good within their limits of resolution. Plant stomata chronologies are also useful.

Not really.

Probably not totally unrelated.

Not dangerous at all… in the 400-600 ppm CO2 range. Higher than that over a short period of time, the crystal ball is a lot foggier.

Dan Mullock
Reply to  David Middleton
January 9, 2021 2:16 pm

Thanks for replying. I really enjoy the folks who challenge/wrangle the facts and not the person.

Editor
January 8, 2021 4:02 pm

Thanks, Joe, your contributions are always welcome. My response is as follows:

a) The Vostok ice core shows a swing in global temperatures in each glacial-interglacial of about 10°C, coupled with an increase in CO of about 100 ppmv. Since 1959, CO2 has gone up ~ 100 ppmv … but the ocean has maybe warmed by 0.3°C.

b) The Arctic ice swings every year from about 14 million sq. km. down to about 4 million sq km. That’s a swing of +5 to -5 million square km every year, which is about ± 1% of the global surface. Not seeing how a 1% swing above and below the average would make much difference.

c) The Arctic is not generally known as either a big CO2 emitter or CO2 sink. The biggest sink is the Southern Ocean and the central Pacific.

d) You’ve shown 2 years of data. Here is the average of the 45 years of weekly Mauna Loa data:
comment image
Combining all of those, I’m not seeing how the change in a small bit of ice in the Arctic is causing a large change in CO2.

My best to you,

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
HenryP
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 9, 2021 2:51 am

Willis, it is not the ice that it is relevant here, I think. And I donot think that Joe is saying that. The arctic sea is getting warmer. Some places in the arctic are reporting an increase of 8 or 9 degrees C. That means that the liquid areas where the CO2 sinks, are getting much smaller *(in the arctic). Hence the zig zag, where the CO2 in Hawaii is getting lower during SH winter and increasing during NH winter. Vegetation and emission are red herrings. It is nothing compared to Henry.
Except that more vegetation causes more warming on land. (John Christie et al)

Above the equator there is always some more CO2 as here the CO2 is strongly emitted from the oceans together with water vapor. So Joe is right. The temperature of the oceans is the major factor affecting the CO2 in the atmosphere. But as explained before, pH is also a major factor although it seems nobody has even taken the trouble to calculate how much….

I think we may assume that pressure is constant, although I think I have seen reports that the weight of the atmosphere is not absolutely constant. I just don’t know what the variation is.

HenryP
Reply to  HenryP
January 9, 2021 3:20 am

to calculate how much…

should rather be

to measure how much…

(It should be measurable, not so?)

Reply to  HenryP
January 9, 2021 1:45 pm

Henry, for some unknown period of time you can edit your posts by means of the small wheel at the bottom right of the comment.

w.

Reply to  HenryP
January 9, 2021 9:03 am

Thanks, Henry. The CERES data show a maximum warming (which is indeed in the Arctic) of about 0.3°C per decade. MSU data shows the same, a warming of 0.27°C per decade. Not sure where you’re getting your numbers.

Also not sure about where you get your CO2 data. Here are satellite sources and sinks from the Japanese Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) and NASA’s second Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2). These are in close agreement with estimates based on surface measurements. See here for details.

comment image

As you can see, the Arctic is generally a net sink for CO2.

Best regards,

w.

Loydo
January 8, 2021 7:48 pm
  1. Oceans are the biggest sink of co2
  2. The warmer the oceans, the more co2 released.

Joe, what happened between 1 and 2? One moment its a sink, a big one, then…
It is actually a sink, so how did you leapfrog to 2?

Reply to  Loydo
January 8, 2021 7:56 pm

CO2 exchange happened. Most, if not all, sinks are also sources.

Loydo
Reply to  David Middleton
January 9, 2021 8:38 pm

Well yes, but he seems to be arguing rising CO2 level is from the ocean not human sources. How else can this be interpreted?

2.The warmer the oceans, the more co2 released.
3.The oceans have warmed.
4.Co2 has increased

It’s hard to tell whether he really believes it or not. Either way his opinions are influential in some circles so he should be more careful about spreading misinformation given the ocean is a net sink.

TallDave
Reply to  Loydo
January 15, 2021 9:19 am

just imprecise language

try instead “atmospheric CO2 increased because warmer oceans (while still a sink) absorbed less CO2 than before”

plausible, though as DM pointed out above, lacking much support from Law Dome and etc

there are some oddities in the CO2 record but it’s hard to account for all of the increase without either a major human contribution or some as-yet-unknown factor

Ian W
Reply to  Loydo
January 9, 2021 1:30 am

Henry’s Law happened.
the amount of gas that is dissolved in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the liquid when the temperature is kept constant.

Eric Vieira
January 9, 2021 3:00 am

With the papers of Rex Fleming(1) and most recently from Wijngarden & Happer(2), it seems to me that the negligible effects of CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide on at least future GW constitute more or less “absolute knowledge”. That politically motivated journals refuse to publish the data is secondary.

1) Fleming, Rex J.Env.Earth Sci. (2018)
2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf

Richard Page
January 9, 2021 3:24 am

So, to my layman’s eye, one recurring universal theme appears to be that CO2 levels respond rapidly to changes in temperature, but not the reverse? Well who’d a thunk it! #sarc

Stan
January 9, 2021 4:33 am

Joe, Why on earth would we wish to lower the CO2 in the atmosphere? Co2 is needed for proper plant growth. The open atmosphere does not have enough for proper gene expression in most plants. Take a walk over to the Agriculture Dept. at Penn State on your next visit and ask about the advances made in greenhouse culture with added CO2. At 2500 PPM the plants need less water, less roots, less light and grow bigger. It’s actually astounding. Calling for CO2 removal is calling for a return to famine.

January 9, 2021 5:12 am

https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/thursday-open-thread-31/#comment-2388967

I recommend Ed Berry’s new book “Climate Miracle: There is no climate crisis Nature controls climate”
https://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Miracle-climate-crisis-controls-ebook/dp/B08LCD1YC3/

My review::5 Stars.

An excellent, readable book that destroys the scary global warming / climate hypothesis.

Reviewed in Canada on November 11, 2020 Verified Purchase

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

Author Dr. Edwin Berry demolishes the IPCC’s very-scary catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis. Ed proves from basic principles that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily natural, not man-made. Berry’s analysis is consistent with my 2008 publication that atmospheric CO2 cannot significantly drive temperature, because changes in CO2 lag temperature changes in the modern data record, as they do in the longer-term ice core record. Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored by global warming propagandists. “The future cannot cause the past.”

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
By Allan M.R. MacRae, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/thursday-open-thread-31/#comment-2388969

More on Ed Berry’s recent book “Climate Miracle: There is no climate crisis Nature controls climate” and his landmark paper at https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/

The world is a big place, and the carbon cycle is never in equilibrium – it chases gradients as they occur, all over the planet. Henry’s Law does work – but locally.

Note the people who contributed strongly to Berry’s paper: Ed Berry, Richard S Courtney, Will Happer, Murry Salby, Hermann Harde and others – I know most of them, and they are certainly among the most intelligent people on the planet. It would be foolish to dismiss their conclusion without doing the work and locating a fatal flaw – which I suggest none of the detractors have done.

It is too easy to shoot-from-the-hip and miss the target. Many years ago, someone called this remarkable relationship “spurious correlation”. It supports Berry’s hypo and is not spurious.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

Atmospheric CO2 cannot significantly drive temperature, because changes in CO2 lag temperature changes in the modern data record, as they do in the longer-term ice core record. Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored by global warming propagandists. The very-scary Catastrophic Human-made Global Warming hypothesis is falsified, because “The future cannot cause the past.”

Regards, Allan

THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

Joe Walker
January 9, 2021 7:56 am

Joe — Interesting and logical that a relatively quick change in amount of Arctic sea ice can have such a big effect on global CO2. I’ve been looking at the UCSD CO2 ppm graph points. I see the overall wave has 3 peaks (~3 yrs), each of which rise about 5-6 ppm and then fall. Also, I follow the logic of your article, and thanks for all that. [.I hope we agree so far.]
Now, as a retired refinery instrument/analyzer guy, I thought of one thing — Accuracy.
It has been a few years now, but up to about 2010, I remember the analyzers for CO2 were between +/- 0.5% of reading and/or +/- 5.0 ppm, which ever is greater.
So, IF that accuracy I remember is still true, then is the usefulness of the waves seems wiped out?
because I think 415ppm +/- 5.0 becomes very similar to 410ppm +/- 5.0 ppm
So how can we be talking accuracy of 1ppm.in approximating slopes on the graph?
Also if we can get the 1ppm for analyzer accuracy, is the “chain of custody”, from Mauna Loa to the testing laboratory, clean (no losses of gas, absorption by sample vial, or impurities introduced)?
You have taught me so much over the past 20 years, please help me out on this.
Is there more accurate technology, or are we “reaching” too far, or what did I miss?

Last edited 1 month ago by Joe Walker
Gordon A. Dressler
January 9, 2021 9:08 am

Joe Bastardi stated in his above article:
“My hypothesis . . . I will rehash it here.
. . . 2) The warmer the oceans, the more co2 released.”

Sorry, Joe, but this is simply not true as long as the world’s oceans continue to have an average pH above 8.0 (this has been the case for a very long time because the oceans are strongly self-buffered to be a slightly basic solution with an average pH range of 8.1- 8.2).

A common misconception—shared by many, as one can see in the above posts—is that gaseous CO2 absorbed when Earth’s ocean waters are cool will automatically come back out of solution and be emitted back into the atmosphere when the same oceans warm slightly. This is not scientifically correct . . . the physical absorption of CO2 in ocean water is NOT a reversible process that varies with water temperature, nor does it follow Henry’s Law.

There is essentially no dissolved CO2 that exists for very long as a dissolve gas just waiting to be outgassed from ocean saltwater as its temperature increases or as the gas pressure over the liquid water decreases. 

If you really dig into the chemistry of how CO2 enters and chemically reacts with sea water (understanding such things as the Revelle factor and, most importantly, the Bjerrum plot), you will find that CO2 gas “solubility” into the ocean is not a reversible process, directionality depending on water temperature, as long as the water pH remains above 8 or so. At the current ocean average pH of 8.1-8.2, far less than 1% of the CO2 entering the ocean remains available as dissolved CO2, a portion of which might possibly come out of solution gradually with increasing ocean temperatures.

Basically (pardon the pun), an insignificant amount of CO2 remains as a gas in aqueous solution in the world’s oceans, and might therefore be available for temperature-induced “outgassing” (see Figure 1, the Bjerrum plot, and the associated detailed, elegant text explanation for this at https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf ).

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 9, 2021 2:00 pm

Alan, the fact that changes in global LAT CO2 lag changes in global LAT temperature in the modern data record as well in the paleoclimatology distant past (the main argument of the reference you linked) does not mean that the physical chemistry of Earth’s saltwater oceans at pH levels above 8 is invalid.

This fact could be explained by many other mechanisms, such as:
1) plant biological processes . . . “The study shows that as global temperatures increase, the amount of carbon dioxide released through plant respiration will increase significantly.”—source: https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/plants-release-more-carbon-dioxide-into-atmosphere-than-expected
2) animal biological processes . . . the activity of animals and their populations, thus their metabolic generation of CO2, tend to increase with warming ambient temperatures
3) abiological processes . . . such as the decrease in calcium carbonate solubility with increasing water temperature, thus reducing CO2 “sequestering” in rocks (such as limestone) with increasing global temperatures.

Each of the above would, of course, have time delays between the driving factor of increasing warmth and the resulting factor of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

There are likely other mechanisms that could come into play to explain the “lagging CO2” response to whatever is the primary driver of global LAT temperature changes.

As I explained, largely by reference to the URL I provided, outgassing of CO2 from Earth’s oceans is not a viable explanation . . . that is, unless one wants to assert that in the recent past (say, the past million years) the world’s oceans had an average pH closer to 7 than to 8 . . . and good luck with that.

Enginer01
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 10, 2021 1:46 pm

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses/OCN621/Spring2010/Biomass_lecture.pdf gives the oceanic biomass as 10^9 tonnes plankom biomas, with a turnover time of .02 to .06 years, compared to a turnover time, of landed biomass of 9 – 20 years. Note (as noted above) most of the oceanic biomass is in the Southern oceans and central Pacific.

Matthew Sykes
January 10, 2021 1:59 am

LW from CO2 cant warm the ocean, it can only cause it to retain more energy that it got from SW, but the amount is tiny. The Tarangoa experiment got about 0.2C for 100 watts increase in skin temperature.

So yes, the sea is such a big CO2 sink it out weighs human production, so while NO2 clearly reduced during lockdown, CO2 didnt. It didnt make one damn bit of difference.

COVID made us run the ‘no more CO2 ‘ experiment for three months, and the results clearly prove man in not a significant source of CO2, oddly.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 10, 2021 8:02 am

Thanks, Matthew. I’ve looked at the Tangaroa data, and I find nothing about ocean warming from longwave. Do you have a link to where they drew that conclusion?

Next, LW from CO2 can definitely leave the ocean much warmer than it would be without CO2. See my post called “Radiating The Ocean” for four different chains of reasoning supporting that conclusion.

Next, I fear your claim that CO2 and COVID “clearly prove man is not a significant source of CO2” isn’t true. The reason is that the annual variations in CO2 swamp any possible changes from the lockdowns. See my post, “Locking Down See Oh Too” that details the the issues.

My best to you,

w.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 11, 2021 12:26 am

Here you so, the SAGE experiments on the Tangaroa ship, it is pretty well known since it is the only, so far as I know, experiment like this,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

We know LW cant penetrate more than a molecule or so, all it can do is warm the very surface skin of the ocean. But the warming is tiny, as you will see from this experiment.

the annual variations in CO2 swamp any possible changes” If annual changes swamp what man produces then man is not a significant producer.

Look at mans CO2 production since we went through 400 ppm, a few years ago. We are told that is due to us. But when we cut CO2 production back 20%, and there is absolutely NO change at all in global CO2 increase, you have to conclude that man is not a significant player.

Re your link. Your first error is saying CO2 can penetrate a mm, it cant, it is much less, less than 10^-5 meterscomment image

The cool layer is half a mm thick or so, heat cant conduct up hill.

Yes the cool layer does go away, when the wind is above 12 m/s I read recently, but this also increases the latent loss. Apparently a hurricane can suck 1000 w/m out of the sea through evaporation.

And you cant say ‘where does it go then’ as proof it does go into the ocean. Thats called circumstantial evidence.

But it is clear that LW cant penetrate more than a few molecules, and the warming effect of this is tiny, and due to retention of energy obtained from shortwave.

(Note in the SAGE data there is no ‘time of day’ spread to the data. This warming effect looks to be pretty quick, it doesnt take time to happen, and once warmed, sits at that new temp in a stable way).

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 12, 2021 3:51 pm

I asked several questions in my post. I fear you haven’t answered any of them. Please come back when you have answers.

Here’s another one. How far does LW penetrate into rock? Less than into the ocean, and yet the rock warms up. Go figure.

Whether LW is absorbed in millimeters or micrometers doesn’t matter. If the energy is NOT warming the ocean, where is it going?

w.

PS-Using RealCimate as your source marks you as a newbie. Those prix banned me for asking scientific questions. Don’t believe a word they say. If they say it’s raining … look outside. Among others, a main player is Michael Mann … see here for what a wonderful man he is.

He also was up to his ears in concealing the Climategate issues. And his so-called “exonerations” are a sick joke.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 13, 2021 1:48 am

I did answer tham, I gave you a link to the Tangaroa data, a graph showing LW penetrates less than 10^-5 meters and why if mans CO2 caused the 400 to 415 ppm increase, cutting it back 20% should have reduced it.

PS-Using RealCimate as your source marks you as a newbie.” Oh come on. RealClimate is a joke, but its the only link to the Tangaroa (SAGE) experiment i could find. It is still valid.

Ignoring data because you dont like the link is evasive. Its the kind of things alarmists do. Dont be like them.

How far does LW penetrate into rock? Less than into the ocean, and yet the rock warms up. Go figure.”

Rock hasnt got a cool layer because of evapopration. Thats why LW heat cant penetrate the ocean.

Whether LW is absorbed in millimeters or micrometers doesn’t matter. If the energy is NOT warming the ocean, where is it going?”

It does matter, it means the energy can not penetrate water. You cant say ‘oh, I cant explain it, so it must heat the ocean’. That is as bad as an alarmist saying ‘i cant explain 20th century warming, it must be co2’.

It isnt up to me to show where the energy goes. It is up to you to prove it goes into the ocean. It cant, it is impossible. It doesnt penetrate water to any meaningful depth and cant conduct up hill.

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 14, 2021 2:03 am

The sun heats up the rocks and the oceans. LW is from both types of surfaces, hindered from radiating in their full black body spectrum directly to the space by the absorbing/emitting components in the atmosphere, which although colder than the surfaces, being much warmer than the space at 3 K.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 14, 2021 9:57 am

Matthew, here are my four questions, and despite your claim, you have NOT answered them:

Argument 1. People claim that because the DLR is absorbed in the first mm of water, it can’t heat the mass of the ocean. But the same is true of the land. DLR is absorbed in the first mm of rock or soil. Yet the same people who claim that DLR can’t heat the ocean (because it’s absorbed in the first mm) still believe that DLR can heat the land (despite the fact that it’s absorbed in the first mm).

And this is in spite of the fact that the ocean can circulate the heat downwards through turbulence, while there is no such circulation in the land … but still people claim the ocean can’t heat from DLR but the land can. Logical contradiction, no cookies

Argument 2. If the DLR isn’t heating the water, where is it going? It can’t be heating the air, because the atmosphere has far too little thermal mass. If DLR were heating the air we’d all be on fire.

Nor can it be going to evaporation as many claim, because the numbers are way too large. Evaporation is known to be on the order of 70 w/m2, while average downwelling longwave radiation is more than four times that amount … and some of the evaporation is surely coming from the heating from the visible light.

So if the DLR is not heating the ocean, and we know that a maximum of less than a quarter of the energy of the DLR might be going into evaporation, and the DLR is not heating the air … then where is it going?

Rumor has it that energy can’t be created or destroyed, so where is the energy from the DLR going after it is absorbed by the ocean, and what is it heating?

Argument 3. The claim is often made that warming the top millimetre can’t affect the heat of the bulk ocean. But in addition to the wind-driven turbulence of the topmost layer mixing the DLR energy downwards into lower layers, heating the surface affects the entire upper bulk temperature of the ocean every night when the ocean is overturning. At night the top layer of the ocean naturally overturns, driven by the temperature differences between surface and deeper waters (see the diagrams here). DLR heating of the top mm of the ocean reduces those differences and thus delays the onset of that oceanic overturning by slowing the night-time cooling of the topmost layer, and it also slows the speed of the overturning once it is established. This reduces the heat flow from the body of the upper ocean, and leaves the entire mass warmer than it would have been had the DLR not slowed the overturning.

Argument 4. Without the heating from the DLR, there’s not enough heating to explain the current liquid state of the ocean. The DLR is about two-thirds of the total downwelling radiation (solar plus DLR). Given the known heat losses of the ocean, it would be an ice-cube if it weren’t being warmed by the DLR. We know the radiative losses of the ocean, which depend only on its temperature, and are about 390 w/m2. In addition there are losses of sensible heat (~ 30 w/m2) and evaporative losses (~ 70 w/m2). That’s a total loss of 390 + 30 + 70 = 490 w/m2.

But the average solar input to the surface is only about 170 watts/square metre.

So if the DLR isn’t heating the ocean, with heat gains of only the solar 170 w/m2 and losses of 390 w/m2 … then why isn’t the ocean an ice-cube?

Next, you say:

“Whether LW is absorbed in millimeters or micrometers doesn’t matter. If the energy is NOT warming the ocean, where is it going?”

It does matter, it means the energy can not penetrate water. You cant say ‘oh, I cant explain it, so it must heat the ocean’. That is as bad as an alarmist saying ‘i cant explain 20th century warming, it must be co2’.

It isnt up to me to show where the energy goes. It is up to you to prove it goes into the ocean. It cant, it is impossible. It doesnt penetrate water to any meaningful depth and cant conduct up hill.

It appears you miss my point. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If it is absorbed by water, it must heat that water … that’s the nature of absorption of thermal radiation.

I say that that warmed water transfers some of the heat downward by both conduction and turbulence to lower layers, as is described in great detail in the JGR study entitled
Heat transfer in the top millimeter of the ocean.

And at night it leaves the ocean warmer than in its absence by delaying the onset of the daily nocturnal overturning of the ocean, a factor you don’t seem to have even considered.

And some, as you point out, goes into evaporation and radiation … but without the DWIR providing that energy, it would all have to come from the heat in the ocean, and as a result the ocean would cool very fast.

You say the warmed water does NOT transfer the energy downwards … if so, where does it go?

Finally, if you ever accuse me again of “ignoring data” or being “evasive”, this discussion is over and you can osculate my fundament. I do neither. I tell the truth as best I know it and I answer all questions as best I can. I am operating in good faith, and screw your ugly accusations to the contrary.

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 15, 2021 2:06 am

OK< let me say it all again…

#1 it isnt a mm, it is less than 10^-5 m, and there is the cool layer meaning heat cant conduct. Thats the difference between water and rock.

#2 I dont care, and it isnt my job to explain it. The fact is it cant conduct down, only raise the skin temp a tiny amount, -.2 C per 100 watts according to Tangaroa. Data you deride because the only lik=nk I can find to it is on realclmate.

Others have suggested it is lost immediately in evaporation. That is a reasonable suggestion, but I haven’t seen it validate through experiment. Or perhaps it is reflected in some way. WHo knows.

#3 same as #1. Cool layer. The cool layer doesnt go away at night.

#4 When you make the lip of a dam higher with bricks, and the level goes up inside the dam. What is that level made of, bricks or water?

The effect of raising the skin temperature, because of LW, is to cause the ocean to retain more energy. Energy it got from shortwave. Energy that can penetrate water tens or hundreds of meters.

But the skin has almost no mass, it cant absorb any significant quantity of LW energy.

You JGR paper. “Turbulence dominates below .5 mm at winds below 10 m/s” . I have read 12 m/s, close enough.

LW cant get through this 0.5 mm barrier. Thats the problem. As wind speed increases I imagine the picture is very mixed. The cool layer will thicken as more water evaporates, to the point where the water is mechanically mixed by the wind, having the surface sheared off. What this does to the energy flow I dont know, but I read hurricanes can cause 1000 w/m heat loss from the ocean, which I imagine is through evaporation due to high wind.

So I am not convinced the cool layer really does go away as it gets windier. Perhaps it goes away between 10m/s and 20 m/s, then comes back as increased heat loss through evaporation increase. I dont know, it needs testing.

So no, I am not at all convinced LW warms the ocean itself.

TallDave
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 15, 2021 9:35 am

shades of the “missing ocean heat” that alarmists kept insisting must be deposited in the part of the ocean where we can’t measure it

Willis re 4: argument by induction and inference is always dangerous — if experiment truly rules out DLR as a major source of warming then doubtless we’ll discover Nature has once again outsmarted all of us in a novel way

Reply to  TallDave
January 15, 2021 10:42 am

I say again:

We know from measurements the ocean radiates heat at ~ 390 W/m2

We know from measurements that the sun warms the ocean at ~ 170 W/m2

You claim that the known downwelling thermal radiation, that is ~ 340 W/m2, does NOT warm the ocean but it warms the land.

So under your claim, the ocean is out of steady-state by some 340 W/m2 or so.

Now, you are free to believe that there is some secret energy source operating, a source twice as large as the sun, a source that is warming the ocean but not the land, a source that no scientist on the planet has ever dreamed of, a source that has escaped detection for the entirety of human history.

Me, I shave with Occam’s Razor …

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 16, 2021 1:04 am

You claim that the known downwelling thermal radiation, … does NOT warm the ocean but it warms the land.”

Land is not evaporating. Land does not have a cool layer.

Land is not heated from within by visible light.

Seriously, there are so many physical differences between water and land that your argument is baseless.

Your model, flat earth, no day and night, that is giving you these simple figures, 160 watts in, 360 watts out is probably too simple.

But again, let me restate, DLW can cause the ocean to be warmer by forcing it to retain more energy that it got from DSW.

When you add bricks to the lip of a dam the level goes up. That increase is from water, not bricks.

DLW are the bricks, DSW is the water.

This is what the Tangaroa experiments found.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 16, 2021 10:02 pm

Matthew Sykes
 January 16, 2021 1:04 am

“You claim that the known downwelling thermal radiation, … does NOT warm the ocean but it warms the land.”

Land is not evaporating. Land does not have a cool layer.

Land is not heated from within by visible light.

Seriously, there are so many physical differences between water and land that your argument is baseless.

That’s not my argument, as evidenced the fact that I start by saying “your claim …”

I merely put it in to clarify that the ~340W/m2 of missing energy has to be some special type of energy that does NOT warm the land but warms the ocean.

Your model, flat earth, no day and night, that is giving you these simple figures, 160 watts in, 360 watts out is probably too simple.

First, my model is NOT “flat earth”. My figures are those from the CERES satellite … which doesn’t rotate around a flat earth.

Next, yes, I average the day and night values … and? That’s what is done by all scientists with all of this type of data unless they’re interested in the diel variations. But that’s not what is going on here.

But again, let me restate, DLW can cause the ocean to be warmer by forcing it to retain more energy that it got from DSW.

When you add bricks to the lip of a dam the level goes up. That increase is from water, not bricks.

DLW are the bricks, DSW is the water.

This is what the Tangaroa experiments found.

This, in another form, is what I’ve been saying all along. From above:

heating the surface affects the entire upper bulk temperature of the ocean every night when the ocean is overturning. At night the top layer of the ocean naturally overturns, driven by the temperature differences between surface and deeper waters. DLR heating of the top mm of the ocean reduces those differences and thus delays the onset of that oceanic overturning by slowing the night-time cooling of the topmost layer, and it also slows the speed of the overturning once it is established. This reduces the heat flow from the body of the upper ocean, and leaves the entire mass warmer than it would have been had the DLR not slowed the overturning.”

Now, you say that if you add bricks to a dam the water goes up … but that increase is from water, not bricks.

That’s like saying that if you put on a jacket you end up warmer, but the increase is not from the jacket … really?

Then why does it only happen when you put on the jacket?

Anything that slows heat loss from a constantly heated object will leave it warmer than in its absence.

Above you said:

The fact is it cant conduct down, only raise the skin temp a tiny amount, -.2 C per 100 watts according to Tangaroa. Data you deride because the only link I can find to it is on realclmate.

I gave you a wonderful link that discusses in detail the ways that the heat can be mixed down. It’s called Heat transfer in the top mm of the ocean. It seems maybe you didn’t read it. You can take your mistaken ideas up with the authors.

Or you could read the study and learn something. They discuss and give the size, physical processes, and nature of the various ways that heat in fact does mix downwards.

In addition, despite re-reading the study, I can’t find the claim in the Tangaroa study claiming that DLR can only raise the surface temperature by “a tiny amount”, 0.2°C per 100 W/m2. But it may be there and I can’t find it, wouldn’t be the first time. So let’s assume for the sake of discussion that that is true.

That means that since the DLR is ~ 340 W/m2, it can heat the skin temperature by 0.7°C … hardly a “tiny amount”. In fact, the day to night variations in equatorial SST are generally only about 0.5°C. So your “tiny amount” is greater than the day/night temperature swing of the open ocean? See here for details on the day-night swing.

Next, you say below:

Oh, something else, geological heat flow could be much higher.

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory

“ it has become clear that geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans”

This is entirely feasible, so rather than suggesting some impossible physical process to balance your heat in, heat out model, perhaps look at this.

We are looking for a missing energy source that is on the order of 340 W/m2 … and your link says nothing of the sort.

Next, consider how that would work. If the ocean floor is putting out 340 W/m2 at the bottom and the sun adds 170 W/m2 at the top … where would you expect to find the warmest water?

And the fact that you haven’t thought it through that far, and yet you are willing to use it as “evidence” to support your misunderstanding, means I’m wasting my time discussing this with you.

So I leave you with my warmest wishes and regards, and with a clear message:

I’ve said my piece. You are free to respond or not.

I won’t.

Stay well,

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 17, 2021 2:44 am

“Now, you say that if you add bricks to a dam the water goes up … but that increase is from water, not bricks.
That’s like saying that if you put on a jacket you end up warmer, but the increase is not from the jacket … really?”

The really important thing all this impacts is ECS and TCR.

If there is no ‘ocean heat uptake’ of LWR from CO2, then ECS and TCR are one and the same thing, and there is no ‘baked in warming’ no ‘warming commitment’.

That is why the difference between bricks and water in constituting an increase in the level of water in the dam is so importnt.

Bricks are LW, water is SW.

If the level was because bricks had been dumped in the dam we would have a problem, we have ‘ocean heat uptake of LW’.

If the level is water, we dont.

It is that simple, so regardless of what your flat earth (and it is, it assumes constant DLR on every square meter, no latitude affects, no day night effects, etc. And that IS important, because the equator is heated by SW, yet the entire surface emits LW, unless it has sea ice, in which case it is insulated) model says, LW itself does not warm the ocean, but it can cause an ocean warming.

And very clearly TCR and ECS are the same, and quite low.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 17, 2021 2:52 am

The 0.2 C per 100 watts is the graph.

That means that since the DLR is ~ 340 W/m2, it can heat the skin temperature by 0.7°C … hardly a “tiny amount”. In fact, the day to night variations in equatorial SST are generally only about 0.5°C. So your “tiny amount” is greater than the day/night temperature swing of the open ocean? “

Tiny? We are talking about 3 watts from CO2. The impact of CO2 is tiny, minute.

As for the 0.5 C day night variation in tropical SST, this is due to the absence of DSW in the night time I take it, because the DLR is probably the same, or close enough, given day and night air temps are often very similar over water in the tropics.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 16, 2021 5:51 am

Oh, something else, geological heat flow could be much higher.

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory

it has become clear that geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans”

This is entirely feasible, so rather than suggesting some impossible physical process to balance your heat in, heat out model, perhaps look at this.

As regards the complete lack of change in global CO2 levels during lockdown, when NO2 fell off the plate, this article also says. “Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint.”

Perhaps this is the massive carbon cycle that so dwarfs mans, that any change is irrelevant.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 16, 2021 6:56 am

I do not disagree that geological heat flow could be an important factor, but I do have a problem with the statement that: “Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint”; this is absolute rubbish. If anyone can provide better data I would be interested to review it.
 
1.    The δ13C-CO2 content of man-made emissions is estimated by NOAA at -28 per mil (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html).
2.    The following linked example of volcanic emissions gives the δ13C-CO2 as -4.4 per mil (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068499). (Results for your favorite volcano may vary.)
3.    The actual observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has a net δ13C-CO2 of -13 per mil:comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Jim Ross
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Jim Ross
January 17, 2021 2:46 am

Apparently CO2 given off by plants has a particular isotope make up to that from the ground.

The assumption is that all CO2 from the ground got in the system because of man. This article suggests volcanoes also put it there, and in quantities so vast it dwarfs mans production.

Why isnt that feasible?

Jim Ross
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 17, 2021 3:20 am

I did not comment on the feasibility of any hypothesis, though I did acknowledge that “geological heat flow could be an important factor” – I said “could be” because I have not studied this in any detail. My point was that a statement about carbon isotopic fingerprints, which you had quoted from your linked paper, was demonstrably incorrect and provided the evidence for the validity of my statement.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jim Ross
Martin Cropp
January 10, 2021 3:19 pm

Joe
I have learnt a lot about CO2 profiles by looking at the wind direct during all of the seasons. While it does not explain all, as other actions are at play annually that contribute to the seasonal profile, it gives a good basic understanding of the source of the atmosphere that is passing over the sample station. That is, where it originated and passed over.
On the earthnull imaging link below, the atmospheric height is set at 700mb, the closest to Mauna Loa at 680mb.

Also look at Barrow Alaska, it is at the center of a rotating air mass that remains in place almost all of winter, with source from Asia. That is why the winter peak flattens out over the winter months.

Its worthwhile to take the time and look at the entire season of what you are writing about.
Regards

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=-162.92,22.48,387/loc=-156.918,21.063

%d bloggers like this: