Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog

0
0

Arno Arrak

The one burning question I have about CO2 is this: how is it possible for the Keeling curve to keep on rising for eighteen years in a row if there was no parallel warming this was supposed to create? None of the highly technical analyses in this paper are nothing but side issues compared to this conundrum.

The rate of change of CO2 has been fairly constant for the time that temps have been fairly constant and there is a marked similarity in the deviations in both over that period.


https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223

This is variation around constant rate of change very close to 2ppm/year.

Previously, the rate of change of CO2 was increasing in a similar way to the increase in global mean SST. Now SST is paused the dCO2 is paused.

The world has been warming for about 300 years and the deep oceans will not have reached pCO2 equilibrium with the atmosphere since 1998. As the warmth penetrates and diffusion mixes surface water with deeper water, the massive reserve in the ocean will continue outgassing.

Your burning question arrises from an unstated and unwarrented assumption that SST ( sea surface temperature ) will fully account for any temperature related change in CO2. It is an indication and closely matches short term change with primarily reflects shallow changes, but the ocean is not one uniform reservoir.


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog

0
0

It can be seen in the above graph that there is a different scaling between the short, inter-annual changes and the longer inter-decadal rise in SST and dCO2.

Further information can be gained by looking at higher derivatives. In part the high-pass effect of the derivative helps isolate the short term change. Again we see the clear similarity, perfectly in phase.


https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233

That article derives 8ppmv/K/year for the std deviations of the short term variability. This is corroborated by looking at the largest swing in the data around the 1998 El Nino, which produces 9ppmv/K/year. ( see links ).

The long term averages gives about 4 ppm/year/kelvin , as the inter-decadal ratio. This is in general agreement with the x3 scaling I used in the dCO2 vs SST graph.

This kind of reduction of scaling ratio with time is what would be produced by a relaxation to equilibrium type response. On the centennial level it would further reduced.

As a ballpark estimation: a further order magnitude in timescale would lead to a similar halving of the scaling, leading to 2ppm/K/year on the centennial variability.

SST rise over last 100 years is about 0.7K

2*0.7*100= 140 ppmv

400 – 280 = 120 ppmv

This is a crude estimation but is based on current empirical data which shows that the amount of temperature driven increase needs to be properly investigated, not swept aside.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by climatereason

0
0

Beth

There are eerie parallels with climate science in as much the UK Labour party (and the EU on numerous other matters) constantly wail that they failed to get their message over clearly. Well they did, which is precisely why they were rejected.

In order to get dodgy points over you need to obfuscate and confuse….

tonyb

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by peter3172

0
0

Well, at least Ed Miliband might now find employment by taking up the lead role in “Wallace and Gromit – the stage play”.
He might need to shave his head tho’ ;-)

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by climategrog

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by beththeserf

0
0

Agree Tony,

‘Obfuscate and confuse,’ and ‘gate-keep’ and ‘dumb down.’
In education, ‘progressive’ social values rule – they’re the
education number one goal.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by freeHat

0
0

Republicans should campaign for a US mitigation plan. This would take leverage away from NGOs and world government wannabe types-basically the people causing the alarmism. The framework already exists for the most part, it’s called the State Dept. The funds would be tied to services and wouldn’t be cash hand outs like current financial aid provided by the US. Get clean gas/coal and solar/wind backers, make it bipartisan and give it a catchy name. Tea and scones in Berlin…

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Bart has no idea what the dynamics of the ocean-atmosphere CO2 exchanges are. His formula:
dCO2/dt = k*(T-T0)
completely ignores the feedback from the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. It is like adding a continuous fixed stream of water into a basin with an open drain and assuming that the level will go up unabated.

The real formula for the reaction of the oceans on temperature increases is:
dCO2/dt = k*(T-T0) – ΔpCO2
where ΔpCO2 is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since t0.
At the moment that dCO2/dt = 0:
ΔpCO2 = k*(T-T0)
Which is what Henry’s law says.

The deep oceans release about 40 GtC as CO2 in the tropic upwelling zones which return to the deep oceans in the sink zones near the poles.
With increasing temperatures, the ocean release increases and the sink capacity is reduced. That gives an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that is a transient response: dCO2/dt approaches zero when a new steady state is reached at ~8 ppmv/K increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. At that moment the original in and out fluxes are restored.

The role of vegetation is an entire different story: It is the main response on temperature on seasonal and opposite on short term (1-3 years) CO2 rate of change variability. But on longer term, vegetation is a small net sink for CO2…


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Arno, ATTP was saying that the increase in CO2 was certainly caused by humans, in which I agree. That says next to nothing about the influence of the increase of CO2 on temperature, that is an entire different discussion.

The global average seasonal variation is ~5 ppmv for a global temperature change of ~1 K. The total CO2 increase is 110 ppmv while the temperature increase was only 0.8 K since the LIA.
Thus I agree with you that the influence of the extra CO2 on the temperature increase is minimal…

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

gymnosperm,

The human input from burning fossil fuels is quite fast spread over the seasonal exchanges with the oceans surface and vegetation, but that is not the main difference, as much of the low 13C returns in another season.
The main problem is in the deep ocean exchanges: what goes into the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of today, what comes out is the composition of ~1000 years ago. Both including some isotopic shift at the air-water border.
That makes that the light-carbon fossil fuel “fingerprint” is diluted by the heavy-carbon CO2 from the deep oceans (around zero per mil). The dilution can be calculated: about 1/3rd of the original fossil CO2 remains in the atmosphere, the rest is in other reservoirs. That also allows us to estimate the deep oceans – atmosphere exchanges: about 40 GtC/year in and out:

The discrepancy in the early years is probably from vegetation, which was thought to have been a small source before 1990…

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David Wojick

0
0

What would the domestic mitigation plan be?

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

AK,

There is an elegant solution for this problem: the oxygen balance. Fossil fuel burning uses oxygen. The amount can be calculated and the oxygen decline in the atmosphere can be measured. Ocean O2 movements are restricted to the influence of temperature on O2 solubility in seawater. But near all plants produce O2 with photosynthesis by taking in CO2 and near all plant use or decay uses O2 to get the energy and produces CO2.

The O2 measurements show that there is a small deficit of O2 decay based on fossil fuel calculations. Thus the biosphere as a whole (land and sea plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals) is a net producer of O2, a net user of CO2 and preferably 12CO2. That is quantified:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by fhhaynie

0
0

And the resolution and accuracy of existing proxie data doesn’t help.

Comment on Week in review – energy, water and food edition by Peter Lang

0
0

I accidentally quoted from the wrong numbers. Correction below:

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Therefore, correcting the figures in my paragraph, it should read:

"Provide perspective. What would the insurance be (if applied equally to all technologies) for the 3 times greater rate of fatalities per TWh of energy supplied by wind farms, 5 times greater rate from solar PV and and 35 times greater from hydro (world average)?

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Either Australians could spend $4 million funding back slapping reports to be regurgitated in the Murdoch social network, or they could make sure their CEOs won’t ever need to brave the chill of an Australian winter night:

More than 680 business leaders from across Australia braved the chill of a winter night on Thursday to participate in the first national Vinnies CEO sleepout.

The initiative, which was held in all the capital cities except Hobart, raised in excess of $2 million for homelessness.

http://www.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ceos-brave-cold-to-help-homeless-20100617-yjx7.html

Canadians can’t bear the thought of an Australian winter night. They might be biased. Still, that’s half the price of a Consensus gig.


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies

0
0

Agreed. Spatially and temporally, proxy data from paleontology needs much more work before we can rely on current projections for policy purposes. It seems that the CAGW alarmism is based on current observational data that has been grafted onto a rather dubious paleo trend line and that much scepticism is based on current observational data alone which IMO has no detectable trend either way.

Comment on Week in review – energy, water and food edition by Peter Lang

0
0

Damn, I posted before I’d edited the paragraph. I’ll try again:

“Provide perspective. What would the insurance premium be (if applied equally to all technologies) for the 2 times greater rate of fatalities per TWh of energy supplied by wind farms, 5 times greater rate from solar PV, 14 times greater from hydro (world average), and 150 greater for coal (USA)?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0

Eventually you get close enough to the future we get to see it.

But yes, if the Chinese are coming, the KimiKamiKaze could come and save our kim</b?onos

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

If CO2 emissions peaked last year, probably never see 2x CO2 and certainly none of those scenarios.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Jim D

0
0

So, if you are right, all those people who said it would collapse the global economy were wrong? Why am I not surprised? Actually the growing green economy is just as vibrant as the black one, and the main workers are more local too, not places like Canada and Saudi Arabia, so it is a direct injection of cash into our communities. They were so wrong on the economics. How do you explain that?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images