Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

March 27, 2012, 10:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Jim’s factor of 0.5*Anthro is actually a brilliant insight, as it does explain in a simple fashion how the excess CO2 is performing a random walk in the ocean, performing no service other than to increase the ocean’s acidification levels.

Then Edim says this:

“The problem is, delta[CO2]/delta[t] is dependent on temperature. The curves are almost identical.”

Which means that Edim must have seen this bit of data mining showing the match to seasonal fluctuations:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AoUzuwoFQyA/T29AMKmFP7I/AAAAAAAABB8/O58gpDrQ-r4/s1600/co2_sst.gif

So not only do the top-tier climate scientists have a perfect accounting of all anthro CO2 increases, they also can account for the seasonal fluctuation on top of the rising Mauna Loa CO2 curve. They have the understanding of the carbon cycle down to a gnat’s whisker!

---

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

March 27, 2012, 10:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

The natural flux from biology on land and in the ocean is 200 gigaton +/- more than 40. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

I would look at both terrestrial and marine sources and sinks – rather than as Spencer did. The ocean may be always a net sink – but the amount of the changes with nutrient upwelling. Sources from land are primarily heterotrophic microorganisms. These source and sinks vary – inter alia – with temperature.

Does warming result in increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – rather than the other way around? It certainly does. Is this a feedback from anthropogenic CO2 – you know I don’t think so.

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

March 27, 2012, 10:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Edim

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

“Does warming result in increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – rather than the other way around? It certainly does. Is this a feedback from anthropogenic CO2 – you know I don’t think so.”

More flip-flopping from Chief. Obviously this does occur, otherwise I wouldn’t have said that we can account for the seasonal outgassing fluctuations.

The IPCC chart you link to shows a balance of +3.2 PPM/year to the atmosphere, given the +6.4 PPM from the fossil fuel emissions. This is exactly the 0.5 or 50/50 fraction that Jim D and I are suggesting is the standard operational model. Half of the CO2 goes into a diffusional active state, partially acidifying the ocean and partially hiding out in the active biotic carbon cycle. The other half stays in the atmosphere, randomly walking across the dispersed diffusional interfaces until the larger fraction can get permanently sequestered in a few hundred years.

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Edim

March 27, 2012, 10:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A science-policy research agenda by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Web, I didn’t mean seasonal fluctuations. I meant the annual growth, which looks almost identical to the global temperature curves.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf

Since the CO2 lags the temperature, the conclusion is that the atmospheric CO2 annual growth rate is at least partly caused by the temperature.

Comment on A science-policy research agenda by manacker

March 27, 2012, 11:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by will gray

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Edim

$

0

0

John Carpenter

I agree with you that our host has expressed her stand on AGW quite clearly.

It boils down to:

AGW: YES
CAGW (as promoted by IPCC): NO

For evidence, check her testimony before the congressional committee led by Rep. Baird:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ChangePan

Here she states:

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.

A point that was underscored by the Curry & Webster “Uncertainty Monster” paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

Later in the testimony she stated:

The threat from global climate change does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century even in its most alarming incarnation.

and

It seems more important that robust policy responses be formulated rather than to respond urgently with policies that may fail to address the problem and whose unintended consequences have not been adequately explored.

These statements seem to sum up her overall position, as I have seen no evidence on this site to the contrary.

Max

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by will gray

March 27, 2012, 11:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A science-policy research agenda by vukcevic

≪ Previous: Comment on A science-policy research agenda by manacker

$

0

0

HI PAUL.
You have been an inspiration for me, also your insights on the social tension between CAGW advocates and sceptics proved true.
I hope it doesnt go to the extremes though.
Loved the post.
Another one bits the dust.

Comment on A science-policy research agenda by vukcevic

March 27, 2012, 11:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by maksimovich

≪ Previous: Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by will gray

$

0

0

Hi Chief
North and subtropical Pacific act in concert, while the North Atlantic is a solo player.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by maksimovich

March 27, 2012, 11:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by gps runner watch

≪ Previous: Comment on A science-policy research agenda by vukcevic

$

0

0

WHT The problem (non trivial) is the biological pump if shut down,would increase the ATM co2 from around 280ppm-450ppm over around the same timescale.Thus the marine biota play an important role in estabilshing the atm concentration,and hence the planets climatology eg Sarmiento 2011.( chapter 4 The role of marine biota in the co2 balance of the OA System)

That the Biota in the SO was operating at a greater efficiency in the LIA and mid 20th is well documented in the literature.That the effects of O3 depletion also need to be assessed in reducing the climate potential of the HNLC zones such as the SO are an interesting problem,as the reversal may enhance the efficiency ie the potential is around 1/3 of the present anomaly .

That the Southern ocean is an important part of the global OA system in paleo climatology is well discussed eg Marinov and Sarmiento.

This mechanism is equivalent to the sea-ice mechanism proposed by Stephens and Keeling [2000], and the gas exchange mechanism of Toggweiler et al. [Part 2, 2003]. Interestingly, this mechanism occurs also as a result of selfsustained climate oscillations in Gildor et al. [2002]. Increased sea ice coverage decreases and results in a decrease in gas exchange efficiency in high latitudes, and therefore a stronger biological pump. Stephens and Keeling [2000] conjecture that complete coverage with ice of the Southern Ocean during glacials would have decreased atmospheric pCO2 by 80 ppm relative to the
present CO2 level.

---

Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by gps runner watch

March 27, 2012, 11:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by maksimovich

$

0

0

I like this web site so much, saved to bookmarks. “Respect for the fragility and importance of an individual life is still the mark of an educated man.” by Norman Cousins.

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

March 28, 2012, 12:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on A science-policy research agenda by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by gps runner watch

$

0

0

Here is the model as it compares with the Mauna Loa data.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-co2-model-fig05.jpg

No one is going to defend this model to the death – the suggestion from both Salby and Spencer is that other things are obviously happening. We don’t know sinks or sources to more than +/- 20% (how much more I wonder) or how these change with temperature and other factors.

There is in fact a literature on this that is fairly extensive – I suggest googling ‘respiration and ocean zooplankton’ or ‘respiration and temperature’. Anything but continue a fact free and beligerant discourse with me.

delta C/delta T does not equal 0.5 anthropogenic. It simply doesn’t and that can be seen quite plainly in the graph – whereas a function of SST produces produces a better fit. Are all the physics and biology captured – of course not.

So unless you want to talk complexity, uncertainty and shades instead of dogged insistence that some superior beings know everything to within a cat’s whisker – I’d suggest you take your random walk down to the Ministry of Silly Walks and apply for a grant. It would certainly be where it belongs to the nth degree.

Comment on A science-policy research agenda by climatereason

March 28, 2012, 12:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

cwon14

Exactly what sort of critical questions are you referring to?

Our host has expressed serious doubts about the SST record, seems somewhat uncertain about sea level rise, acknowledges past periods of climate change, has got involved in examining the historic land temperature record.

I think that in our host you are seeing someone whose previous certainty has been questioned and she is having increasing doubts about the uncertainty surrounding climate science, but she is certainly no sceptic in the sense that many on this forum are.

Judith is pretty open minded though and it is up to us to provide evidence to expose the thin pillars that AGW rests on. I try to do that with historical articles and others put forward other arguments.
tonyb

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

March 28, 2012, 12:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on A science-policy research agenda by climatereason

$

0

0

Partly, of course, and according to Spencer, Chief, and yourself, that it can lead to CAGW.
What else can I conclude given the huge sensitivity you have given to it, what appears to be an activation energy of a few electron volts, instead of a few tenths.

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by climatereason

March 28, 2012, 12:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

Chief Hydrologist.

A couple of years ago I wrote an article examining the historic background to CO2 measurements.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/

At one time it was thought that co2 levels varied considerably due on year (due to ocean outgassing amongst other factors) and until the 1950′s it was generally thought that around 400ppm was the bakground level.

Within the article itself you will see much interesting historical information and within the comments much practical physics. It is a very good source of information as many people from both sides of the argument took part.

My own take is that the pre industrial 280ppm was a highly debatable figure that was put together by GS Callendar and taken up by Keeling at Mauna Loa and that if Keeling was innediately correct with his readings in 1957 (even though he had no experience of the subject whatsoever) then thousands of respectable scientists were wrong for the 130 years that 200,000 readings were being taken prior to that. Science however seems to say that this rapid variation in atmospheric CO2 readngs that was considered the norm can’t happen.

Its worth a read and has some information and a graph of the 7ppm rse per 1 Degree SST change .
tonyb

Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

March 28, 2012, 1:08 am

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by climatereason

$

0

0

Another super embarrassing public boner Webby? An inability to read and comprehend the captions? A neophyte trap?

The figures are of course in gigatons. And of course it adds up – be a bit embarrassing if it didn’t. And of course these fluxes have uncertainties greater than +/- 20%. Read the caption.

It is more like 4 ppmv anthro. emissions. But in a cool year it could be as little as 0.4 ppmv accumulating in the atmosphere and in a warm year as much as 3 ppmv – from the limited data we have. But the ocean has been warming – so these fugitive emissions have been ratcheting up for decades.

And what caused the warming. I’d put my money on clouds – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Wong2006figure7.gif

You think if you accuse me of flip flopping incessantly it will stick? I haven’t changed a bit – temperature drives CO2 levels in the atmosphere obviously.

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

March 28, 2012, 5:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Ross Cann

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist

$

0

0

Gary M: <i>I wonder if the people who work at coal powered power plants, in coal mines, railroads that transport coal, and in industries that depend on coal generated power in their areas, will think this is much ado about nothing. </i> I think that you missed one of the points. The reason that this rule will have little impact is that natural gas is already replacing coal and will continue to do so with or without this rule. Those people whom you worry about are already adjusting (or not) to the fact that US consumption of coal is declining.

---

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Ross Cann

March 28, 2012, 5:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

$

0

0

Name the plants not now actually under construction and we will see if any get built. $100 says they won’t. Natural gas is half the cost of coal.

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by lolwot

March 28, 2012, 5:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Ross Cann

$

0

0

I know what cwon says is what skeptics think because I see them saying it elsewhere on other blogs.

If anything the “conspiracy” here is that skeptics are being extra careful on this blog to filter out certain things which can only be for the purposes of influencing Dr Curry.

The problem is cwon didn’t get the memo.

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by curryja

March 28, 2012, 5:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by lolwot

$

0

0

good points

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by lolwot

March 28, 2012, 5:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by peterdavies252

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by curryja

$

0

0

ocean pH doesn’t change?

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by peterdavies252

March 28, 2012, 5:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by Doug Badgero

≪ Previous: Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by lolwot

$

0

0

Judith said ” I think Power Mag has it right, this won’t make much difference to what is already happening, but this provides much fodder for political posturing on both side”

There certainly has been quite a lot of discussion of the EPA’s powers and the lack of political will to enforce the principles behind setting up of the EPA in the first place. The obsession with CO2 seems to be a legacy of pretty shoddy science and it seems that many westernised countries are living with its consequences.

I am not a fan of fracking, because of the effects of fracking on the sub strata and its hydrology have not been fully understood. There is anecdotal evidence that water tables are being contaminated and much more work needs to be done on assessing the impacts of this process.

Hence to replace coal fired technologies with gas fired technologies may not be as positive a move as it would suggest, especially in view of the fact that in the case of coal fired stations, aerosols can be reduced through greater efficiencies to be obtained in combustion and in the scrubbing of emissions through chimneys. The extraction of coal from the ground, while not sightly on the immediate area, still seems less controversal than the extraction of shale oil and gas.