Home/BlogThe COVID-19 disease spread is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as business close, airlines cancel flights, and people shelter in their homes. For example, there was a 28% decline in global commercial air traffic in March 2020 compared to March of last year.
Last month I described a simple method for removing the large seasonal cycle from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina (the removal is noisy and imperfect), in an effort to capture the underlying trend in CO2 and so provide a baseline to compare future months’ measurements too.
What we are looking for is any evidence of a decline in the atmospheric CO2 content that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn. As can be seen, the latest CO2 data show a slight downturn, but it’s not yet out of the ordinary compare to previous month-to-month downturns.
I personally doubt we will see a clear COVID-19 effect in the CO2 data in the coming months, but I would be glad to be proved wrong. As I mentioned last month, those who view the economic downturn as an opportunity to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to wait many years — even decades — before we would see the impact of a large economic downturn on global temperatures, which would occur at great cost to humanity, especially the poor.
Very interesting! Thanks for posting, and it will also be quite interesting to see how this data plays out (versus resumption of economic activity) over the next several months.
Since human activities only contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the change in the levels from this global virus scam will be so slight, it probably won’t even show up. Natural sources supply the rest and I don’t think an economic slow down will affect the natural plant breakdown in the soil that supplies a majority of the gas of life to our plants. Only fools ignore this linkage of our food supply.
I agree with you and Dr S on this, but it would be good to have some data on how much population growth affects CO2 production beyond existing estimates for fossil fuel emissions, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes.
“how much population growth affects CO2 production beyond existing estimates for fossil fuel emissions, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes.”
From what else, breathing? Please do tell us what other larger effects you and Salby are imagining?
The King of Obfuscation just can’t help himself. Nate’s his name, trolling’s his game.
And yet he has no answers.
If you can’t support your opinions, don’t post.
The added population drive vehicles, work at jobs, eat food, buy things etc. which is additional CO2
Norm,
Yes it is confusing…
because he is suggesting some mysterious mechanism ‘BEYOND existing estimates for fossil fuel emissions, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes.’ that is somehow much much larger than all of those.
Yet neither he nor Salby can tell us what that might be.
Norm,
What is needed are better estimates of how much the growth in population affects food production and non-fossil fuel energy. 10% of every gallon of gas in the US comes from corn. In addition to that, there’s all that plowing and decomposing that contributes to CO2. Although most Americans don’t burn a lot of wood any more, it’s still important in many countries with high growth rates. Who keeps track of that?
“Who keeps track of that?”
idk, why dont you find out if these are already included in estimates, and if not make an estimate of the order of magnitude of these additional emissions..
I’ll bet it is << FF emissions.
Otherwise its just hand-waving.
Nate says:
“because he is suggesting some mysterious mechanism BEYOND existing estimates for fossil fuel emissions, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes. that is somehow much much larger than all of those.”
I didn’t read it that way at all. It makes no sense the way you read it. “Existing” means current use now. Population growth means the future from some point in time. It may well be that population growth is by far the primary variable in CO2 emissions.
Fact is I use a lot less energy than I did 50 years ago. My car gets twice the mileage, my lightbulbs use one fifth the energy, my tankless water heater is like at least a quarter what my old uninsulated tank heater used. My house is at about 5 times better insulated. All my appliances are more efficient. If anything increased in my energy use it was almost certainly globalization and the additional travel delivering me goods as most of the machinery in manufacturing is also more efficient.
Now of course there were some populations transitioning from rural existence into the modern world. But burning wood for fuel, to cook and heat is far far less efficient and even the best wood burning stoves release more than a 100 times the particulates as do gas and oil stoves. Modern highly efficient wood burning stoves have less than 60% of the efficiency of gas and oil furnaces and the efficiency of that tails off fast with lesser technology. Also efficiency tapers off with less processed rawer wood. Fresh cut wood releases about 20 times the CO2 for the same amount of heat. Wood cut by a hardworking pioneer who seasons his wood in drying sheds (with seasons meaning real seasons like 6 months or more through the summer and parts of the spring and fall) improves that ratio by about 4 or 5 times but remains about an equal distance to go to match fossil fuel furnaces.
Impoverished populations in 3rd world countries tend to burn freshly cut wood like nomads. I have never seen a well designed study to determine the actual CO2 emissions of the 3rd world as it much better to just talk about fossil fuel use. But its also the case the world huddles around the equator as a personal energy saving device of not having to cut wood for heat.
Bottom line is population growth probably accounts for almost all growth in emissions from all sources.
On the flip side there are renewable technologies and like the transition from wood to fossil fuels have aided populations immensely, technology will roll on. The problem with the government essentially mandating it, which they have to do because its simply not competitive is it increases the pressure on the poorer populations. The homeless problem in the US now can be traced to ever stricter zoning and building standards not the least of which are energy efficiency mandates on doors, windows, air exchange, shell insulation, appliances, special taxes on appliances. Zoning mandates on minimum sized homes and home density artificially supports home prices of larger homes, it basically goes on and on. This basically just prices many people out of the housing market. Mandating renewables is going to only aggravate that. More taxation has huge backlash in economic costs and makes a country less competitive plopping the problem on the backs of America’s most vulnerable through job and wage losses. And entering into world agreements that give exemptions is also simply plopping an even larger share of the issue on the backs of America’s poor. All of the above has been a project of the elite for 50 years. Its destroyed the middle class, it has created a homeless population of immense size and its all caused by exactly what politicians work toward. . . .serving special interests.
We are living it here in California with prices for oil down to about 65cents a gallon ($20 a barrel) and over $3 still here at the pump. . . .all ostensibly to save the world from climate change. Are our leaders really that stupid? No, just follow the money. You have those collecting the money and those hitched up with nose harnesses parroting the spiel. Its not a matter of creating money, its entirely a matter of gathering it, having power over it, subverting the democracy of it, all without adding a red cent to it.
“I didnt read it that way at all. It makes no sense the way you read it.”
Because you werent around for earlier discussion where Chic is more explicit about his meaning, Bill.
“We are living it here in California with prices for oil down to about 65cents a gallon ($20 a barrel) and over $3 still here at the pump. . . .all ostensibly to save the world from climate change.”
Huh?? Not making much sense here, Bill.
Nate says:
“Huh?? Not making much sense here, Bill.”
Perhaps you are too young and too inexperienced. Back in the day before the climate change hysteria in 1988, for example, the average price of crude oil on the exchanges was 19.64/barrel or about 0.47 per gallon. At the same time in 1988 the average price of gasoline at the pump in California was 0.91 per gallon. This included 9.1cents federal excise tax and 5.15cents state tax. Thus over the wholesale price of raw oil there was about a 30cent markup to cover refining, transporation, storage, and regulatory compliance and a competitive profit. Meaning of course the government even in 1988 took far more oil profits than the oil companies, all their subsidiaries and independent dealers did combined.
Today the price of oil is $23 a barrel and the average price at the pump in California $2.89. All being the same as 1988 the average price would be $1.05 per gallon at the pump in California.
How can that be? Well the government takes a far bigger slice of the pie today. Also regulatory costs are way up. And as regulatory costs escalate competition is harmed. All the regulation along with a lax attitude about anti-competitive behavior gets ignored because if push comes to shove the really greedy folks might get exposed.
And since it is the less affluent that pay a much higher portion of what income they have for energy needs; this form of taxation hammers those the most that can afford it the least. Elitist attitudes have led to form of class warfare that the elitists deny by moving their lips in virtuous speech.
Nate says:
“Because you werent around for earlier discussion where Chic is more explicit about his meaning, Bill.”
What kind of excuse is that? Chic is denying your take on it. You are totally lost in some bubble in your imagination.
As usual, Bill you dont have all the facts, havent followed the discussion, but still blurt out your non sequitur opinions.
Nate says: “As usual, Bill you dont have all the facts, havent followed the discussion, but still blurt out your non sequitur opinions.”
Why bother posting if you aren’t going to add an opinion on the issue? Only bad losers go 100% ad hominem.
Bill,
Nate can’t help butting in, denying this, dodging that. He’s the King of Obfuscation.
Bill its not an ad-hom to point out that you havent followed the lengthy discussion between Chic and me, taking one post out of context and misinterpreting it. Its just a fact.
You can ask Chic to explain his religious beliefs that fossil fuel emissions cannot have caused the rise in atmospheric CO2 of the last century.
But I’ll warm you that he’s quite immune to logical reasoning on this topic.
Nate says: ”Bill its not an ad-hom to point out that you havent followed the lengthy discussion between Chic and me, taking one post out of context and misinterpreting it. Its just a fact.”
Did I misinterpret that you were suggesting Chic was talking about a mechanism other than the CO2 emissions on the part of population growth? If not where did you get that idea?
Nate says:”You can ask Chic to explain his religious beliefs that fossil fuel emissions cannot have caused the rise in atmospheric CO2 of the last century.
But Ill warm you that hes quite immune to logical reasoning on this topic.”
Logical reasoning isn’t your strong suit. Maybe that has something to do with it. True stupidity is drawing conclusions when the evidence simply isn’t there. As Forrest Gump sez. Stupid is as stupid does.
Clarification…human activities contribute 3% of the total emissions, but 30% of the total concentration. And that figure is probably closer to 5% actually since we emit 40 GtCO2 now. That 40 GtCO2 is about 5 ppm/yr. The biosphere and hydrosphere are able to take up about 50% of this excess which allows 20 GtCO2/yr (2.5 ppm/yr) to accumulate in the atmosphere. A 50% reduction in emissions when result in a 0 ppm/yr net change in atmospheric concentration at least in the short term before the buffering reduces as well. A 100% reduction in emissions would result in a -2.5 ppm/yr net change in atmospheric concentration…again in the short term before equilibration processes change the uptake rate. I do agree with you though. There is a good chance that the economic slowdown will not be detectable when looking at CO2 levels…just not enough reduction in emissions.
Not so fast, bdgwx. You quoted figures from a model that assumes no change in “natural” emissions that is any emissions not included in the Boden et al. estimates of fossil fuel emissions. Therefore your 30% assumes that all the growth in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuels. Where is your evidence of that?
I do commend you for noting the impact of equilibrium processes which as yet have not been thoroughly quantified.
I actually am proposing that both natural sources and natural sinks change…over the long term. Over the short term? I think not because there’s no obvious connection between natural sources and sinks to human behavior such that they are modulated in tandem. Afterall, if they’re modulation does work in tandem with human behavior then is it really natural?
Anyway…this is why I clarified that the magnitude of these responses are only over the short term. We can both agree that 5 ppm/yr of human emissions go in but only 2.5 ppm/yr of whatever you decide to partition stays in. It doesn’t matter if it is 100% human, 100% natural, or somewhere in between. If you reduce humans emissions by 50% or 2.5 ppm/yr the previous imbalance of 2.5 ppm/yr instantly goes to 0 ppm/yr regardless of what the other sources are doing unless, of course, you believe the other sources work in harmony with human behavior.
Again…this only applies to short term responses. I completely agree with you that long term natural responses will changes.
It seems we are coming close to agreement on some points.
1) Both natural sources and natural sinks change…over the long term.
2) Human influence on natural sources and sinks are not modulated in tandem.
3) Currently about 5 ppm of fossil fuel emissions are added to the air each year and are attributable to human causes.
4) CO2 emissions from all possible sources contribute to a yearly growth of about 2.5 ppm CO2.
Here is what we still need to discuss.
1) What model did you use to predict, “If you reduce humans emissions by 50% or 2.5 ppm/yr the previous imbalance of 2.5 ppm/yr instantly goes to 0 ppm/yr regardless of what the other sources are doing unless, of course, you believe the other sources work in harmony with human behavior?”
2) Working in harmony is a great concept. It is what most people describe as the situation in place before the industrial evolution, an equal amount of sources and sinks in equilibrium. I think in general sinks are not working in harmony with any source. Sinks simply respond to whatever concentrations they are presented with. Things are no longer in equilibrium, i.e., harmony.
3) Natural sources have some human influence and some that would occur regardless of the population. The share of the human-caused natural sources has been and will continue to increase as the population grows.
Posted at the bottom by accident.
Good. Easier to find that way.
Chic, ”2) Working in harmony is a great concept. It is what most people describe as the situation in place before the industrial evolution, an equal amount of sources and sinks in equilibrium. I think in general sinks are not working in harmony with any source. Sinks simply respond to whatever concentrations they are presented with. Things are no longer in equilibrium, i.e., harmony.”
———————————-
Considering oceans take a minimum of 1500 years to be in harmony with the atmosphere its far more likely than not that the system is never in harmony. the 1500 years is merely the established minimum via the limited testing of a very small sample of waters found at the bottom of the ocean. It may well be the case that materially harmony is theoretically possible after 1500 years but the sample population is so small there is plenty of room for error. And with satellite monitoring systems only about 40 years old claims of harmony is pretty much a bad joke.
the good news is research continues. ARGO will be extended to the bottom of the ocean in the next decade. Satellites continue to improve. But the risk of devastating climate change is quite remote. Spending our dollars on true research rather than mitigation is by far the best strategy going forward.
It isn’t like a pandemic where you should be both recommending face protection and putting in place means of domestic production to supply it (along with toilet paper I suppose now too) where the consequences are predictable and obvious of not doing so.
What if we had invested in that instead of climate change mitigation that hasn’t produced any visible benefits to date?
We obviously missed the boat on that and that could have been done at a fraction of the price of what we did instead. Maybe somebody should do a study on how every city, township, county, state, public institution has expended gobs of money preparing for climate change and compare that to how much money was expended preparing for pandemics.
Bill,
Sounds like you are saying attempting to mitigate climate change by ending fossil fuel consumption is worse than just letting it run its course. If so, I agree.
I don’t think there is any question of that. The cure is far worse than the disease.
Since the atmosphere and oceans are in a continuous interaction to keep the CO2 equilibrium, that ‘3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere’ must be re-examined with this in mind. There’s ~52 times the atmospheric CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and hence, that 3% will disappear into insignificance.
CO2 escapes from the bowels of the Earth through underwater volcanoes and other geothermal activities with an unknown variability/cycles, a variability that may actually exceed the current anthropogenic component. That CO2 originating from underwater volcanos bubbles out of the oceans to feed the biosphere with the basic nutrient without which life on Earth will disappear.
The amount of carbon in the ocean does not in any way affect how much humans are putting in the atmosphere. 5 ppm/yr from humans goes into the atmosphere. Your 52x multiplier is irrelevant in assessing the impact humans have on atmospheric CO2 levels.
Volcanoes emit about 1/100th the amount humans emit. The bulk of the natural emissions is from biomass decomposition and ocean outgassing which are actually about 20x higher than human emissions.
bdgwx & Chic Bowdrie.
There are still some of unknowns in the CO2 equation, but the great unknown are the oceans which cover 71% of the Earth’s surface. We do not know as yet what is exactly happening down there. However, the first scans of the Earth’s surface by the OCO-2 satellite gave a good indication of where the higher CO2 levels are: Over the tropical forests, that, prima facie, seem to be net contributors, and the oceans. And China.
https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/media/gallery/browse/1stmap.jpeg
First, that image is for Oct-Nov only.
Second, that image is showing the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere only.
That image cannot be used to test the hypothesis that tropical forests are net emitters of CO2.
bdgwx says: “That image cannot be used to test the hypothesis that tropical forests are net emitters of CO2.”
Well at least its a real image. Model run data sets are imagined images. It might be nice if you applied your litmus test for validity as evenly when it supports what you believe as you do when it does not.
Bill said: Well at least its a real image. Model run data sets are imagined images.
I posted a link to the entire OCO-2 dataset below. And OCO-2 relies on models to infer CO2 concentration. In fact nearly all measurements rely on models of reality including things as trivial as even a single temperature measurement. So if you have a problem with models then you have a problem with measurement in general and science is not going to be very educational or satisfactory for you. Oh…and I would not draw a conclusion about what is a net emitter or net absorber from just OCO-2 anyway especially considering there are many other lines of evidence to be considered.
Bill said: It might be nice if you applied your litmus test for validity as evenly when it supports what you believe as you do when it does not.
First…I base my position on all lines of evidence…not just one.
Second…I do apply the same litmus test for validity with datasets that do not perfectly conform with the consensus position. UAH is a perfect example of this. It is an outlier in nearly every way compared to other dataset of similar purpose. Yet I still give it equal weighting.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”So if you have a problem with models then you have a problem with measurement in general and science is not going to be very educational or satisfactory for you. ”
Bullshit bdgwx! Obviously you have little or no experience working with models or validating them. I have a professional certification and my area of concentration has been in areas both financial and natural systems where modeling is really the only means of coming to conclusions and satisfying the needs for documentation.
Models are able to become reliable but they must first prove their reliability. Measurements are merely inputs into models they have nothing what so ever to do with the ”model’s” reliability.
Reliable models can fail. . . .garbage in, garbage out. Also good data can be run through a bad model (not yet validated) and give the wrong results. Your comments betray your ignorance.
bdgwx says:
”Bill said: It might be nice if you applied your litmus test for validity as evenly when it supports what you believe as you do when it does not.”
Again just more pure bullshit on your part.
bdgwx says:
”First…I base my position on all lines of evidence…not just one.”
More bullshit! There are millions of lines of evidence. So that can’t be true. Perhaps you consider the lines of evidence given to you that you were willing to read? What consideration have you given to the concept of ocean overturning? Do you also pay attention to the evidence you don’t have? All the evidence is there right in front of you bdgwx, just waiting to be understood.
But by far the most important issues don’t even have papers on them beyond perhaps an acknowledgement that detailed documented observations are lacking.
bdgwx says:
”Second…I do apply the same litmus test for validity with datasets that do not perfectly conform with the consensus position. UAH is a perfect example of this. It is an outlier in nearly every way compared to other dataset of similar purpose. Yet I still give it equal weighting.”
And you should unless you know whats wrong with any of them. though I disagree that UAH is an outlier in nearly every way to every other dataset. I probably look at it a bit differently than you.
First, I give credence to all versions of a dataset until somebody has clearly identified a needed correction. All humans have biases often the last person to know is the person with the bias.
Since some of my model analytical work was in litigation support I have seen this at work both with individuals and groups. But litigation support is more akin to professional advocacy.
Working as an auditor you don’t pick sides because your client isn’t company management, its investors and lenders, both current and future.
the auditor listens to both sides then attempts to obtain independent evidence showing which side is likely right. Its a lot of work. And in the audit trade there are no shortcuts so you start with both old and new and all the different opinions about it all. But its not something somebody can do online. Its all intense face to face and heavy documentation. It sucks up a lot of time and effort by everybody involved. So if it hasn’t been done by a true independent professional, thoroughly reviewed by several layers of other independent professionals, and meets a high degree of certainty you will never see an auditor’s opinion on it unless its an uncertainty disclosure.
You will not see me take sides, though, I from time to time will question temperature adjustments from a “I would like to see evidence of that” but it doesn’t stop me from giving equal weight to each run and each record to the extent it runs on unique measurements or unique adjustments. Repetition of the same measurements or process steps don’t add up to more certainty. If have already eliminated problems with those measurements or process steps then you don’t need repetition. And if you haven’t repetition isn’t going to help.
So the really only valid critique is of adjustments that haven’t been well documented and fully disclosed. But thats supposed to be how science advances right? One shouldn’t rely on non-professional peer review, one should only rely on that which is open and transparent and you will find usually that when its not there is a reason for it not being open and transparent.
Watcher,
bdgwx is right on the irrelevance of the 52x multiplier and probably right on the contribution of volcanoes, although those estimates may be too conservative.
The main unknown, IMO, is understanding how much of the growth in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the relatively slow rate that oceans absorb CO2 from the air. IOW, if the atmosphere and ocean were given time to equilibrate at their current levels, the concentration of CO2 in the air would drop.
What was keeping the atmospheric CO2 levels viable for Earth’s biosphere to stay healthy for a billion years or two, previous to current one millisecond (in geological timescales) of anthropogenic CO2 release? Was it unicorns?
About atmospheric CO2 pick up by the oceans, it doesn’t work that way. It works in reverse. Oceans release CO2 until the system is rebalanced, keeping the equilibrium.
Watcher,
I’m not sure what you mean by viable. Some people see high levels of CO2 a threat while others claim Earth has been starved for CO2. Certainly levels higher than now were likely caused by volcanic activity in excess of what we are familiar with these days. I really don’t know.
What is known is that about a fourth of the CO2 in the air is recycled every year. That means both forward and reverse processes are at work. The air has a net surplus now. To me that means the sinks are doing the heaving lifting towards restoring an equilibrium, if that’s even ever a realistic possibility.
Watcher,
I don’t think atmospheric CO2 was optimal for biomass for a billion years. In fact, life has had to evolve to compensate for a secular decline in CO2 levels over the last several hundred million years.
The ocean can either be a net absorber or a net emitter. It depends a few factors that most important of which is the pressure differential between the hydrosphere and atmosphere in accordance with Henry’s Law. There’s also the Revelle Factor which takes dissociated inorganic compound processes into account as well. So the ocean does not always release CO2. In fact right now it is a net absorber.
bdgwx says: ”In fact right now it is a net absorber.”
While I can agree that it probably is, calling it a fact is an overstatement. Facts are determined by evidence. Existence of accepted studies isn’t in and of itself a determinate of evidence.
All,
This year about 5 ppm of fossil fuel CO2 and 95 ppm of CO2 from other sources will enter the atmosphere while concurrently about 98 ppm will be absorbed by the various sinks. Either the biosphere or the hydrosphere or both has to be a net annual absorber, otherwise there would be no roughly 2 ppm/yr average growth in CO2 emissions. If we could agree on this we could move on to address what happens in the oceans.
I agree with that Chic.
Don’t forget the lithosphere with which the three other reservoirs interact with.
Since human activities only contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, ‘
The 2nd comment, and a dead horse. Wow.
Yeah, the human C12 emissions get diluted by vegetation and oceans, but the increased CO2 will still partly be there and the best science says about 30 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human induced. A great part of the human emissions have been taken up by the oceans, but oceans net intake is now only about 2 atmospheric ppm/year. If we didn’t use coal nor change global land use, the atmosphere would loose more than 1ppm CO2 per year.
As a comment to the headpost, there should be, IMO, no reason to see Covid at Mauna Loa.
I always get a kick out of the meme “best science”. Best is a subjective view of something that is supposed to be 100% objective.
Applying evenly distributed physics to an ocean where carbon is anything but evenly distributed and where the convective physics controlling its deepwater mixing is also anything but evenly distributed isn’t science at all.
Oh you use science principles then moronically just apply them in a non-scientific manner and what do you end up with? Garbage in garbage out.
It was apparent to me that climate science didn’t even begin to recognize that the ocean had a role in climate until 20 years after the 1988 beginning of recognition of climate. Now 12 years later and a few dozen ocean expeditions they are just beginning to comprehend the problems that oceanographers have been wrestling with for decades longer with rather poor progress due to a lack of funding, particularly during the first 20 years of climate excitement.
Facts will be shown sometime in the future that simplistic looks at “net” uptake derived from human input – delta atmospheric concentration = net ocean/atmosphere exchange is shy a few critical variables. But that won’t change Al Gore’s mind that nothing is changing except the size of the human built sandpile.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
and
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/conclusions.shtml
with the two above links folks can witness scientific eyes coming out of their ocean climate deep slumber. If this problem can actually be solved it should open our eyes to ongoing natural processes as well something that simply watching temperature and atmospheric CO2 isn’t likely to do. After a lot of decades working on ocean issues I am rather convinced that oceans are a necessary and unavoidable major ingredient in climate change science. Only in the last dozen years has it been recognized by climate science that there is a connection between ocean climate and atmospheric climate even though ocean climatologists have been working on it for couple decades longer for an entirely different reason.
And we are probably just seeing the tip of the iceberg as the oceans have the major role in putting water vapor into the atmosphere. Carbon in the atmosphere is important to the greenhouse effect though the oceans terrestrial biomass gobble up over 98% of it. Meaning of course without accurate understanding of oceanic portion of the carbon cycle one may as well be gazing at a crystal ball to try to divine climate under the carbon control knob theory.
“one may as well be gazing at a crystal ball” i know Bill, science and not-science are just as good.
Bill, Scientists understood that the ocean played a significant role in the climate system at least as early as the late 1800’s. Refer to the pioneering work by Svante Arrhenius.
the issue isn’t the awareness that climate is part of the climate system, the issue is the awareness to the degree the ocean is part of the climate system, especially in the recognition of natural variation.
This is the first thing I noticed about IPCC AR3. Science is now well aware of the issue I was aware of 14 years ago when I first read the report. One can attribute that lack of awareness to the initial predictions of climate models that have so overshot actual results. Yet because their message largely fell on deaf ears politically, they refuse to recognize what they got wrong.
Based on the strategy of blaming all warming we have seen to date to CO2 would now require a recognition that the initial estimates of the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 was wrong because at the time of the writing of AR3 all the warming to date was absolutely not all due to CO2. (the infamous Ben Santer 17 years). Go check the figures those 17 years showed a warming rate in compliance with predictions and since have not.
It changed almost on the date that Santer inked his last period in his work.
I suspect that the coming decade will again remind us of that fact as warmists have hung their hat very high on the last 6 years, a time they even recognize isn’t climate relevant because in 2000 they were aware of ENSO and had figured they had accounted for it. Now they are living by it. The result seems almost inevitable unless a miracle occurs and we discover yet another wonderful ocean characteristic that actually hides the heat.
This shutdown has affected air travel and cars (cars being big air pollution emitters in urban areas) but electric power plants and truck shipping are likely about the same, no? Would we even expect a big CO2 emissions decrease?
Deaths in the UK are so low at the corresponding time of year compared with others. I am getting to the point with my investigation that Covid19 may not exist, as they don’t test for Covi19. They test for some substance on your lungs that can be created by many different diseases. It looks like wmds all over again.
Tim at least leave enough tin foil for my Sausages
While the head barker David Icke is “out there”, he is largely correct about the testing, especially the use of tests not calibrated or certified for clinical use, which the vast proportion of tests are. The data quality is appalling for just about every metric.
The USA has an apparent 20% infection rate and it hasn’t changed since testing ramped up. After 2.5m tests it’s rock solid at 20%. What does that tell you?
I am calling bullshit on the data quality. It makes “climate science” look serious.
“those who view the economic downturn as an opportunity to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to wait many years even decades before we would see the impact of a large economic downturn on global temperatures, which would occur at great cost to humanity, especially the poor.”
Strawman, no one is seeing this as an opportunity to reduce global warming.
And serious people who do think CO2 emissions should be reduced are not proposing an economic downturn as the mechanism.
” . . an opportunity to reduce global warming. ”
I suspect that you meant ‘man-made’ global warming, AGW.
You know, the belief that some of the recent natural GW, is AGW.
I should feel dirty posting this (lol) but…. since servers and online activities roughly equal flights in CO2 contributions, then I wonder the net change from staying inside more actually is.
https://time.com/46777/your-data-is-dirty-the-carbon-price-of-cloud-computing/
The 2008-2009 economic slowdown was substantial and yet only reduced emissions by 1%. The highest estimate I’ve seen for 2020 so far is an astonishing 10%. Even at that it would only reduce emissions from 5 ppm/yr to 4.5 ppm/yr. And assuming natural buffering stays consistent at about 50% this would only suppress the CO2 growth from 2.5 ppm/yr to 2.0 ppm/yr. I’m just not sure even this pandemic induced slowdown will be detectable when looking at CO2 levels. We’re doing the experiment so we’ll see.
According to Dr. Spencer’s model, a 10% drop in FF emissions would still produce a 1.6 ppm/year increase in CO2. My modification of his model using Berry/Harde/Salby math gives only a 0.5 ppm yearly drop in CO2. Your calculation agrees with our math. How can that be? What model are you using?
At least we agree that the impact of a slowdown will be hard to detect.
My model is simple. Humans emit 40 GtCO2/yr = 5 ppm/yr. The atmosphere is observed to have an imbalance of +2.5 ppm/yr. Assume all other sources and sinks remain constant. 10% of 5 ppm/yr is 0.5 ppm/yr reduction in sources. This pulls the imbalance down to 2.0 ppm/yr. Is it perfect. Nope. Would it provide a reasonable approximation of the change in airborne CO2 balance over only a 1 year period. Maybe. Just trying to do an order of magnitude and back-of-the-envelope estimate here…
Extend your back of the envelope calculations to predict what would happen if you reduced emissions 0.5 ppm/year for 10 years.
10 years is beyond a simple order of magnitude estimate for the CO2 response due to the current economic slowdown.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
There is no evidence that atmospheric composition is responsive to emissions.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/16/agw-issues/
“Detrended correlation analysis is used to test this relationship. The detrending procedure removes the spurious effect of shared trends on correlation so that only the responsiveness at the specified time scale is measured in the correlation. ”
What you have shown is well known. There are natural source/sink variation (ENSO, and Volcanoes) that dominate atm co2 rate-of-change on 1-5 y time scales.
But on > 5y scales the correlation between emissions and atm CO2 rate-of-change is strong.
If you remove that correlation that you call ‘spurious’, then the correlation gets worse!
Your hypothesis is that atmospheric CO2 levels do not respond to emissions?
He said what he said. Can’t you read? Seemed clear enough to me.
bdgwx says: “Your hypothesis is that atmospheric CO2 levels do not respond to emissions?”
Of course its not his hypothesis bdgwx. That would be a silly hypothesis. What he said may not have been accurately detailed enough to glean his meaning, but he clearly did not make any such hypothesis.
What he said was: “There is no evidence that atmospheric composition is responsive to emissions.” Thats merely a statement of fact. The statistical evidence offered isn’t convincing as simple correlation isn’t evidence of causation. So in the study he refers to trends are removed as being potentially shared trends. A steady increase in CO2 and a steady increase in ocean warming simply doesn’t provide much statistical certainty that causation is present. You need more variation in the CO2 emissions to single it out like ENSO is able to be singled out because of its high degree of variation.
That is actually what makes Roy’s post here interesting. Seems nothing can be done to make the trend go away.
A scientific experiment is where you manipulate one variable and watch what happens in contrast to the control model. Statistics can’t artificially produce such variation, all it can do is measure it when it occurs and when it occurs a sufficient number of times and the test subject responds to the variation you gradually eliminate the possibility of coincidence. Thats exactly the case right now with the hydroxychloroquine. Thousands of doctors are observing patient recoveries from the use of the drug but coincidence hasn’t been eliminated and you have a case where thousands of similar observations are being deemed as anecdotal.
Thus his statement is in regards to millions of observed emissions and steadily rising atmospheric CO2 content and attributing those emissions to the increases in levels of CO2. Certainly the atmosphere is responding to emission but maybe not at a measurable level and the measurable increase in CO2 in atmospheric composition might be caused primarily by something else. . . .like a warming ocean.
But I didn’t see him come to a conclusion, he simply appeared to question the science that human emissions are the cause of the observed increase in atmospheric composition, which happens to be a “reasonable” assumption but not a “scientific” one despite being spouted as such by thousands of scientists much like thousands of scientists spouting that folks don’t scientifically need face masks for weeks.
So bottom line his post is more an indictment of post normal science where its judged by a large body of scientists that would profit from a human caused disaster by being called on to solve the problem caused by CO2. By fiat and not science it has been deemed politically that CO2 is a problem. And the politicians all point to the scientists who would profit from that as evidence. Some folks would rather have some science on the matter.
“observed emissions and steadily rising atmospheric CO2 content and attributing those emissions to the increases in levels of CO2.”
The point is the atm CO2 content has not been sreadily rising. Its rate of rise has increased over the last 6 decades.
And the smoothed rate of rise has matched emissions as they increased over that period.
Nate says:
“The point is the atm CO2 content has not been sreadily rising. Its rate of rise has increased over the last 6 decades.”
If you had read my entire post with comprehension you should have gleaned that.
I pointed out that CO2 varies with ENSO showing a robust natural response to ocean climate condition variables and thus can be removed.
But you jump in and start talking about 6 decades of variability.
You have bought into a tailored suit Nate. The 6 decades of variability where cooling transitioned into warming isn’t unique in the natural record. Take the 6 decades from 1880’s to 1940’s for example. Almost an identical pattern. Only problem is we didn’t monitor CO2 then. So the 6 decade argument fails due to ignorance.
The bottom line is we know that ENSO affects the level of carbon in the atmosphere but we really don’t know what causes ENSO. We know less about your tailored suit.
Bill,
When you said ‘steadily rising atmospheric atmospheric CO2 content’ I simply pointed out that this is incorrect.
The rise has been ACCELERATING. The acceleration is precisely what should result from increasing emissions over the 6 decades of precision measurement.
Prior to that there were a few measurements showing a slower rise from 1890 to 1938 in Callendar (1938).
Prior to that we have ice cores showing nearly flat CO2 levels at 275 ppm for 2 millennia up to late 1800s.
Prior to that we have ice cores showing levels dropping 80 ppm during glaciations and never rising to current levels over 400 millenia.
In other words, we have no observations showing a natural occurrence of such a sharp rise in CO2, except during this geologically brief moment of high anthro emissions.
That just happen to be the right amount over each of the last 6 decades.
Not a ‘tailored suit’ just basic empirical facts. Facts that Occam would find compelling.
Do you deny them?
If so then show us your alternative facts.
Bill,
Nate has two weapons, correlation and obfuscation. He will debate you to the death with those.
Chic simply has no answers, and must resort to childish name-calling.
What a poor loser.
And BTW, his team, Salby, Bart, Stephen et al seem fine with using correlation as evidence.
Nate says: ”The rise has been ACCELERATING. The acceleration is precisely what should result from increasing emissions over the 6 decades of precision measurement.”
Well the warming isn’t accelerating Nate.
Unless you are totally not thinking that has to raise a huge red flag.
CO2 has accelerated from 6 decades ago but 6 decades ago the globe was cooling. Fossil fuel increase has outstripped population growth but population growth outstrips CO2 in the atmosphere growth.
None of this adds up with the stuff you believe Nate.
One explanation for the above relationship are that per capita human fossil fuel emissions isn’t the driving force on CO2 growth because some of that fossil fuel growth is replacing other forms of fuel like wood burning, especially in the 3rd world, China, and India.
Wood on average releases several times the CO2 for a given amount of heat released. In 1959 when Moana Loa reading began most of rural America burned wood for heat. I remember well as a young teenager it was my job to supply the firewood for the home fires. That was in Los Angeles County suburbia.
Finally, population growth has outstripped CO2 in the atmosphere growth bringing into focus Chic’s concerns that you were criticizing. Population since 1960 has grown more than 150%. CO2 in the atmosphere growth since 1960 has only grown 30%. That should tell you something with population growing 5 times faster than CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nate says: ”Prior to that there were a few measurements showing a slower rise from 1890 to 1938 in Callendar (1938).
Prior to that we have ice cores showing nearly flat CO2 levels at 275 ppm for 2 millennia up to late 1800s.”
I wouldn’t be putting too much stock in any of that. The basis of these estimates have never been groundtruthed. In science when nobody knows the answer speculative science is acceptable to academic institutions. thats because there is no professional liability assigned. Therefore there is no public responsibility required and the institutions allow a lack of documentation at their sole discretion. You should be really aware that puts at risk any reliance on information poor theories and those lacking sufficient groundtruthing.
Nate says: ”Prior to that we have ice cores showing levels dropping 80 ppm during glaciations and never rising to current levels over 400 millenia.”
What you mean to say is no ice crystals have been found the currently contain levels higher than that. I have the same problem in my home freezer of maintaining quality for any significant length of time.
Nate says:
”In other words, we have no observations showing a natural occurrence of such a sharp rise in CO2, except during this geologically brief moment of high anthro emissions.”
thats true but thats not a scientific argument.
Nate says: ”That just happen to be the right amount over each of the last 6 decades.”
Right amount for what?
Nate says: ”Not a tailored suit just basic empirical facts. Facts that Occam would find compelling.”
Compelling? How so? Seems to me they were selected because they fit the mannequin.
Nate says: ”Do you deny them?”
I am a professional at being skeptical. Skepticism isn’t believing something is wrong. Skepticism is simply not being convinced one way or the other.
If not believing a particular theory was being a skeptic then everybody would be a skeptic, because anybody that believes anything in fact doesn’t believe anything that is contrary to what they believe. Thats why you aren’t a skeptic. You are a true believer.
Nate says: ”If so then show us your alternative facts”
You are the only one claiming facts. You want me to prove you don’t have any? I sort of thought there was some evidence of that in the first paragraphs above.
‘Well the warming isnt accelerating Nate.’
relevance?
‘Fossil fuel increase has outstripped population growth but population growth outstrips CO2 in the atmosphere growth.’
And…?
‘I wouldnt be putting too much stock in any of that. The basis of these estimates have never been groundtruthed. ‘
Here again, since YOU are not aware of its verification, and havent bothered to read up on it, then you assume science hasnt verified it…
Science will file your complaint where it belongs.
‘I am a professional at being skeptical.’
Lets see more self-skepticism of your qualitative, il-informed, not groundtruthed ideas.
Nate says: ”Lets see more self-skepticism of your qualitative, il-informed, not groundtruthed ideas.”
I show how your one scientific link is a non-sequitur to the topic I have been discussion and then point out key data points wholly dependent upon one untested assumption and you reply like a child stomping your feet not scientifically refuting a single point.
Nate – Chic has you completely pegged.
Bill,
You are the one making the claims that the science is wrong or flimsy but you have failed to fully inform yourself on the actual quantitative facts before making these wild claims, while bringing up irrelevant politics and unproven claims of conspiracies.
Imagine how such an il-informed obviously biased auditor’s report would be received at a company?
Why should they take your report seriously?
bill said: I am a professional at being skeptical. Skepticism isnt believing something is wrong. Skepticism is simply not being convinced one way or the other.
This position is what is often referred to as being psuedo-skeptical.
“‘Prior to that we have ice cores showing nearly flat CO2 levels at 275 ppm for 2 millennia up to late 1800s.’
I wouldn’t be putting too much stock in any of that. The basis of these estimates have never been groundtruthed. ”
What is your scientific basis for this claim of this data being not groundtruthed? I mean actual scientific evidence, not politics, not feelings, not ideology.
“In science when nobody knows the answer speculative science is acceptable to academic institutions. thats because there is no professional liability assigned.”
This is clearly a non-scientist showing his ignorance about how science is self-correcting.
“You are a moron Nate. I post that we need more science on the ocean to understand a variety of processes and you post there is no problem.”
Nice.
But I’m not the one conflating stuff that I don’t understand with stuff that science doesn’t understand.
They are not the equivalent.
I can admit that I don’t understand lots of stuff that is not in my wheelhouse, while acknowledging that there are people who probably do understand it.
I can admit that people who fix my car, my knee, my computer know what they are doing in these areas, and I don’t.
Why cant you?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Nate says: ”What is your scientific basis for this claim of this data being not groundtruthed? I mean actual scientific evidence, not politics, not feelings, not ideology.”
Nate if you understood what scientific evidence was you would know there is no such thing as scientific evidence of proving something has not been groundtruthed. All anybody can say about is nobody has informed me of any such groundtruthing or any of the dozens upon dozens of people I have asked.
If you believe it has been ground truthed then its up to you to provide evidence of such successful effort.
Nate says: ”“In science when nobody knows the answer speculative science is acceptable to academic institutions. thats because there is no professional liability assigned.”
This is clearly a non-scientist showing his ignorance about how science is self-correcting.”
LMAO! When an answer is speculative it hasn’t been proved and academic science only corrects itself when it finds proof. That can take more than a thousand years as it did with heliocentricity.
Oh I left that last response without the most important point.
A doctor who is a professional would violate the rules of his profession if he operated on my knee without a huge amount of investigation into the safety and effectiveness of the operation and the correct level of training in doing it correctly.
Thats true of all professionals I am aware of. An engineer doesn’t build a public bridge using untested theories. Even car mechanics are being certified these days as being competent to work on your car. Scientists? They get a lot of training and are competent to crank out direct results of known science but they have no licensing or certification that limits them to that.
“Thats true of all professionals I am aware of. An engineer doesnt build a public bridge using untested theories. Even car mechanics are being certified these days as being competent to work on your car.”
Glad you agree that there are experts in society that we need to rely on to know what they are doing.
“Scientists? They get a lot of training and are competent to crank out direct results of known science”
Now youve gone off the rails.
“but they have no licensing or certification that limits them to that.”
As if that’s a bad thing? Scientists by definition push the boundaries of known science.
You don’t see scientists as professionals, when they clearly are. This explains a lot about your many anti-science, ‘we dont understand anything’ diatribes.
“there is no such thing as scientific evidence of proving something has not been groundtruthed.”
Then Im not sure why you made the statement that ice-core analysis has not been ‘groundtruthed’, when clearly you have nothing to base that on. It is just a feeling you have.
You might as well say that about infectious diseases being caused by viruses or bacteria.
If you believe that has been ground truthed then its up to you to provide evidence of such successful effort. Show me the groundtruthing that viruses cause disease.
Point being, its not my job to go find the papers that you need to be finding yourself and reading, everytime you toss out one of your feelings that some science has not been groundtruthed.
Nate says:””but they have no licensing or certification that limits them to that.”
As if that’s a bad thing? Scientists by definition push the boundaries of known science.
You don’t see scientists as professionals, when they clearly are. This explains a lot about your many anti-science, ‘we dont understand anything’ diatribes.”
Pushing the boundaries of known science is both precisely why they are not professionals and why you might not want them to be professionals. Academic freedom is a concept that serves another purpose. But you don’t want academic freedom using people as their guinea pigs. Thats how the Nazis operated.
————————-
Nate says:
”Then Im not sure why you made the statement that ice-core analysis has not been ‘groundtruthed’, when clearly you have nothing to base that on. It is just a feeling you have.”
All you demonstrate by that statement is you don’t know what ground truthing is.
—————————-
Nate says:
”You might as well say that about infectious diseases being caused by viruses or bacteria.
If you believe that has been ground truthed then its up to you to provide evidence of such successful effort. Show me the groundtruthing that viruses cause disease.”
Nate are you about 16 years old? Cures go through a huge battery of tests proving they are safe before allowing their use. Then before allowing them to be touted by the profession as a cure they must be proven effective. For example the case of Hydroxychloroquine, it was proven safe and effective as a malaria prophylaxis but before being approved as an effective treatment of coronavirus it must still be proven effective.
Climate change mitigation measures have neither been proven as safe or effective.
For all those who see CO2 as a pollutant, maybe what they can do is create a few dozen isolated bubble environments inside of a -18C room fill it with various biological specimens and set CO2 at various levels and see which ones survive. then work up from there creating every larger environments to determine if we even have a disease.
——————————————–
Nate says:
”Point being, its not my job to go find the papers that you need to be finding yourself and reading, everytime you toss out one of your feelings that some science has not been groundtruthed.”
Nobody is demanding you provide papers proving groundtruthing Nate. The only thing being said here is if you want to convince others of a problem. . . .bring forth ground truthing of the evidence you present; otherwise simply recognize that you are as ignorant about it as everybody else.
Bill
“The only thing being said here is if you want to convince others of a problem. .”
Exactly, your generic claims of problems with science are unconvincing.
Nate says: ””The only thing being said here is if you want to convince others of a problem. .”
Exactly, your generic claims of problems with science are unconvincing.”
I would agree with you if it were a ”generic” claim. However, its no where near a generic claim. It is only a claim in the presence of significant uncertainty. A large number of scientists agree with that assessment for climate change.
And here you are in the middle of it without a shred of evidence one way or the other claiming certainty . . . .without, I presume, being awarded for it as it appears you have been trained to obey authority. Nothing wrong with that, obedience has its place. I am sure you can find a good career somewhere.
bill, It’s like this. Scientists work to find the best model that fits reality. Their opinions are swayed when the criticism extends the model or present an alternative that works better than what they currently have. Presenting what I call “nuh-uh” arguments concerning an existing model without explaining how to make it better is not very convincing because we are no better off than we were before. To be convincing your criticisms must be accompanied with an explanation of how to get a better result/answer. Being skeptical means that you consider all lines of evidence and are open to accepting improvements. It does not mean that you should remain perpetually unconvinced. That’s being psuedoskeptical.
bdgwx says: ”bill, Its like this. Scientists work to find the best model that fits reality. Their opinions are swayed when the criticism extends the model or present an alternative that works better than what they currently have. Presenting what I call nuh-uh arguments concerning an existing model without explaining how to make it better is not very convincing because we are no better off than we were before. To be convincing your criticisms must be accompanied with an explanation of how to get a better result/answer. Being skeptical means that you consider all lines of evidence and are open to accepting improvements. It does not mean that you should remain perpetually unconvinced. Thats being psuedoskeptical.”
As we know in all topics there are two independent process levels around the development and use of knowledge. The first step is advancing the knowledge, the second step is applying the knowledge. There is no prohibition against applying half baked science on yourself and strong prohibitions on applying it both voluntarily and involuntarily to others. That’s the case whether you have credentials as an expert or not, and especially the case if you do have credentials as an expert. The reason for it being tougher on experts is it is seen as immoral to influence others using the color of expertise when you haven’t properly developed the science.
My comments are relevant in both steps of the development and use of knowledge. First my comments regarding what is missing in the science is absolutely crucial with a bunch of morons running around immorally using the color of their expertise to claim the science is settled. Thats pure bullshit.
Second some of my comments move into describing exactly what isn’t known and why it might be important. This is important information in educating those morons because to solve a gap in science you first have to acknowledge it. What I see in here is a lot of denial of those gaps.
Third and most importantly the public should be aware that the science remains half baked and key critical elements have not yet been established. Elements that could very well reverse suggested efforts to apply the science.
Since this is a public blog belonging to a heralded scientist populated by a bunch of people who hold contradictory ideas and the proponents of applying the science without any further ado can’t seem to grasp there are huge gaps.
I would like to know what you hope to accomplish with the post you just made. Same for Nate. What it certainly doesn’t look like is an effort to plug any gaps in the science so what is it for?
bdgwx,
“Scientists work to find the best model that fits reality.”
That’s exactly what Berry and Salby have done. To that end, they reject the Bern model. On what basis do you accept the Bern model and reject Berry and Salby models?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-462543
Nate says: -Good analogy Bill. It seems every jury you would be on, if you followed the principles you espouse here, would be a hung jury.
If we act like juries are expected to, and try to come to a decision based on the available evidence, we would swiftly convict anthro carbon for the rise of atm CO2.
———–
You have changed the argument Nate. I have already said that there is little doubt mankind has contributed to the carbon in the atmosphere. The only doubt is how much. Is it some tiny amount or is it all as you believe. I even gave calculations of the range from every last drop of human emissions (your theory) down to a small number calculated from the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle.
What I was talking about is evidence that in the past 450,000 years carbon never reached current levels simply isn’t there at a convincing level. Its one thing to observe the existence of something and quite another to deny existence in the past when you weren’t even watching.
But lets play with your new goal posts as it looks like fun.
What you have failed to recognize is just a few hundred meters below the surface is enough carbon to cause the atmosphere to swell up by a couple hundred more ppm than the current level should that water obtain a wide exposure across the ocean surface.
Stuff like that happens and its possible it already has happened to give us the bulk of carbon in the atmosphere. We have never seen an atmosphere on earth made up of 400ppm carbon dioxide that is made up entirely with the same isotope as the carbon mankind emits from burning fossil fuels.
To explain that folks then resort to inventing reasons why that might happen, paying close attention to not getting crazy and having somebody mark down their paper.
The point I made was simple but you don’t seem to understand even the simplest of concepts. If we measure human emissions against the carbon in all of the carbon cycle, the actual tonnage of what we emit would be a drop in a bucket. I provided you with the calculations and it flew over the cuckoo nest.
And don’t mistake my statement above with the sort of statement you make. I don’t look at a tiny bit of evidence and suddenly declare what the evidence might point to as a universal truth. I only mention it in support of further research on the matter without somebody with a political agenda diverting the funds.
‘You have changed the argument Nate. I have already said that there is little doubt mankind has contributed to the carbon in the atmosphere. The only doubt is how much’
‘we would swiftly convict anthro carbon for the rise of atm CO2.’ Should be obvious that I am arguing, as always that anthro, which is mostly FF is largely responsible.
No change whatsoever in my argument, Bill.
Bill said: What he said was: “There is no evidence that atmospheric composition is responsive to emissions.” Thats merely a statement of fact.
You think human emissions of 5 ppm/yr have no effect on atmospheric composition? And you know this for a fact?
Bill said: Certainly the atmosphere is responding to emission but maybe not at a measurable level…
Ok. So the 5 ppm/yr does effect atmospheric composition? But that it is not measurable?
Bill said: …and the measurable increase in CO2 in atmospheric composition might be caused primarily by something else. . . .like a warming ocean.
So the 2.5 ppm/yr increase is measurable, but the 5 ppm/yr emissions are not?
And if carbon mass is transferring from the ocean to the atmosphere then why is the ocean pH decreasing? And where did the 5 ppm/yr of human emissions go?
bdgwx,
All we are saying here is that the 5 ppm from human emissions can’t be distinguished from the 100 or so ppm from “natural” emissions. Unless you know what that “natural” number is, you can’t say all the 2.5 ppm/year increase is anthropogenic.
bdgwx says:
”You think human emissions of 5 ppm/yr have no effect on atmospheric composition? And you know this for a fact?”
bdgwx, you are reading what you want me to be saying. What I am saying is its a fact evidence is lacking that the measurable change in CO2 presence in the atmosphere is due to human emissions. That is not saying that there are no human emissions in the atmosphere. We know there are. The question is how much to attribute to that and how much to attribute to natural climate change.
bdgwx, says:
”Ok. So the 5 ppm/yr does effect atmospheric composition? But that it is not measurable?”
Well taking your word for it that 5ppm/yr is what humans emit what counts toward atmospheric composition isn’t what is emitted its what is retained of what is emitted.
bdgwx, says:
“So the 2.5 ppm/yr increase is measurable, but the 5 ppm/yr emissions are not?”
For example the ocean is a huge carbon sink that is responsive to Henry’s law. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere its mere presence is going to slow natural ocean emissions as Henry’s law is a law of partial gas pressures between a gas and a liquid. Its a no-brainer that human emissions contribute to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere (meaning they are good as more CO2 is good because of its green benefits). But you are kidding yourself if you think you know how much of that is retained in the atmosphere.
Thus to argue that the 5ppm human emissions are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 you have to argue that human CO2 emissions changed the solubility of carbon dioxide in water by say warming the ocean sufficiently to change the equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere. the whole thing hinges on the science being settled when its not. thats what drives a lot of skepticism, it looks a lot like a house of cards. Tip over the right domino and the entire theory collapses. And its not even necessary to tip over one domino. Observation is showing a a central figure of about 1.5degC. . . .not a whole lot to worry about. Probably should be focusing more on pandemic control and if not that they how to blow up a rogue asteroid.
Chic/Bill,
2000 GtCO2 got injected into the atmosphere by humans. 1000 GtCO2 stayed in the atmosphere and 1000 GtCO2 got taken up by the biosphere and hydrosphere (mostly hydrosphere). We know the human emitted mass is responsible for the mass increase in the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere because human emitted carbon does not just disappear. It is now there…permanently. It may move around and get exchanged within these reservoirs, but it is still there…permanently. Humans disrupted an atmospheric carbon budget that was nearly balanced for thousands of years. It is now unbalanced by 2.5 ppm/yr. The actor that caused this imbalance is the responsible party. And we know for a fact that we disrupted the balance.
Bill said: The question is how much to attribute to that and how much to attribute to natural climate change.
We caused the atmospheric imbalance…all of it…or at least most of it. That means we are responsible for nearly 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm.
Bill said: Well taking your word for it that 5ppm/yr is what humans emit what counts toward atmospheric composition isnt what is emitted its what is retained of what is emitted.
5 ppm/yr is sourced by humans. 100 ppm/yr is sourced by nature. 102.5 ppm/yr is sinked by nature. 2.5 ppm/yr is what is retained. Prior to humans 100 ppm/yr (approximately) was both sourced and sinked by nature for thousands of years. We disrupted that balance.
Bill said: If you add CO2 to the atmosphere its mere presence is going to slow natural ocean emissions as Henrys law is a law of partial gas pressures between a gas and a liquid.
No. It is does not slow natural emissions. What it does is increase natural absor.p.tion. Or at the very least it increases natural absor.p.tion more than it increases natural emissions. But notice what you just said…adding CO2 to the atmosphere effects natural sources and sinks. That necessarily means they are not entirely natural anymore are they?
Bill said: Thus to argue that the 5ppm human emissions are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 you have to argue that human CO2 emissions changed the solubility of carbon dioxide in water by say warming the ocean sufficiently to change the equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere.
Yes and No. More CO2 in the atmosphere creates head pressure that drives some of the CO2 into the hydrosphere. This happens until an equilibrium is achieved. The temperature of the ocean does affect the pressure differential though. And remember…gaseous CO2 transfers between the atmosphere and hydrosphere is only one piece of the puzzle. You also have dissociated inorganic compound processes to consider which are themselves modulated in part by the carbon abundance and temperature of the hydrosphere. It’s complicated for sure, but not a mystery.
Bill said: it looks a lot like a house of cards.
There’s a bit of irony here considering this is coming from a position in which there is no house to use for comparison.
Bill said: Tip over the right domino and the entire theory collapses.
The best way to tip over a house-of-cards theory is to present an alternate theory that does an even better job of matching reality.
bdgwx,
“1000 GtCO2 stayed in the atmosphere and 1000 GtCO2 got taken up by the biosphere and hydrosphere (mostly hydrosphere).”
That’s based on your fuzzy math and unwillingness to embrace the Salby/Berry/Harde model. “We know” is not a good argument. Regardless, no one is claiming anthropogenic CO2 disappears completely from the atmosphere. Get a grip. Stop with the appeals to authority and the hand-waving assertions and let’s get back to scientifically based arguments.
Chic,
2000 GtCO2 got emitted by humans. If my math is fuzzy then please sharpen it up. Where did the 2000 GtCO2 go?
bdgwx says:
”2000 GtCO2 got injected into the atmosphere by humans. 1000 GtCO2 stayed in the atmosphere and 1000 GtCO2 got taken up by the biosphere and hydrosphere (mostly hydrosphere). We know the human emitted mass is responsible for the mass increase in the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere because human emitted carbon does not just disappear. It is now therepermanently. It may move around and get exchanged within these reservoirs, but it is still therepermanently. Humans disrupted an atmospheric carbon budget that was nearly balanced for thousands of years. It is now unbalanced by 2.5 ppm/yr. The actor that caused this imbalance is the responsible party. And we know for a fact that we disrupted the balance.”
The short version of the above and the more technically correct as well is your 5ppm is cherry picked out of a much larger system that chemically stays in balance. 5ppm only addresses the very small portion of the chemically balanced reservoir that is in residence in the atmosphere.
“The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere”
So using those figures as an adjustment for the actual size of the chemically balanced reservoir you are talking about is approximate 78 parts per billion/yr. That alone dilutes the human contribution down to about 10ppm for the entire industrial age.
Of course that’s not politically acceptable for some, so we see folks coming up with theories that these exchange rates between the various reservoirs is constrained. If you want to make some progress in your argument thats where it has to go.
But even that is only a small part of the entire reservoir that includes all the carbon deposits given off by other chemical processes and form for example the white cliffs of Dover by creating carbonate deposits on the ocean floor etc. It seems reasonable that additional carbon in the ocean, sky, and biosphere is going to accelerate those processes as well. . . .to speak of the fact that humans don’t make the carbon they emit they extract it from reservoirs.
So there is little hope of making the case you are trying to make.
Bottom line is when science artificially partitions itself from the entire natural world to figure out impacts they are primarily proselytizing a new religion. The only difference between that and a real religion is that scientists involved in it gradually add to the pool of information and science advances. The beauty of the process is that contrary to popular belief a free people will learn from those advances and do the right thing as a general rule. A quote from Will Happer impressed me when he said its easy to explain physics to an eager classroom full of motivated students. But history has also proven its pretty darned easy to deceive them as well if you abandon the scientific method and turn it into a class on religion using all the tools of that discipline like damnation, punishment, and reward.
bdgwx says: ”
Bill said: The question is how much to attribute to that and how much to attribute to natural climate change.
We caused the atmospheric imbalanceall of itor at least most of it. That means we are responsible for nearly 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm.”
Circular reasoning. How do you know we caused all of the atmospheric imbalance? Because its there proves how it gets there? Come on you are smarter than that.
bdgwx says:
“Bill said: Well taking your word for it that 5ppm/yr is what humans emit what counts toward atmospheric composition isnt what is emitted its what is retained of what is emitted.
5 ppm/yr is sourced by humans. 100 ppm/yr is sourced by nature. 102.5 ppm/yr is sinked by nature. 2.5 ppm/yr is what is retained. Prior to humans 100 ppm/yr (approximately) was both sourced and sinked by nature for thousands of years. We disrupted that balance.”
thats based on a theory that our contribution doesn’t change the rate of natural sources. Henry’s law would argue strenuously that it does. According the math I gave you in my previous reply which only considers the better understood chemical processes, our 5ppm stunts natural sourcing by 4.9ppm/year. so without our emissions natural sourcing might be 104.9ppm. All your theories are based on circular reasoning to reach the conclusion you want to reach.
bdgwx says:”Bill said: If you add CO2 to the atmosphere its mere presence is going to slow natural ocean emissions as Henrys law is a law of partial gas pressures between a gas and a liquid.
No. It is does not slow natural emissions. What it does is increase natural absor.p.tion. Or at the very least it increases natural absor.p.tion more than it increases natural emissions. But notice what you just saidadding CO2 to the atmosphere effects natural sources and sinks. That necessarily means they are not entirely natural anymore are they?”
You need to think that through better bdgwx. And provide evidence that no natural effect is causing atmospheric increases. You are merely describing an experiment that has no control by assuming equilibrium in the natural system.
that works for a well sealed tank of gasoline, I imagine it doesn’t work so well for the ocean sky interface with cloud variability and who knows what else.
A chemical process that seeks equilibrium is going to move toward that equilibrium on the basis of the delta. In other words with an average residency time of 7 years in the atmosphere the largest accumulation you could achieve in the atmosphere with 5ppm input and a limitless ocean reservoir is 35ppm after that as much is being lost as is being input without considering the carbon content of the entire ocean and sky system which pushes the input down to 78ppb.
Thus the function of a long period input of 5ppm is 35ppm + 78ppb*#years. And even that much is iffy ignoring ocean and biosphere losses to mineral deposits.
All this goes to show is how well the suit has been fitted. With a pre-industrial 280ppm and a current 410ppm at most you are looking at human emissions being responsible for 1/3rd the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (45/130). The argument then becomes that feedbacks warm the ocean further to provide the additional 85ppm.
But observations are making that rather dicey with surface temperatures responding at only 50% of the rate it should.
As a CPA I would expect no less as I have seen many a tailor made suit designed to fit a theory. However, CPAs aren’t in the suit buying business. CPAs want to see evidence that this is science and not just an expertly tailored suit to fit the image one has because experience teaches the CPA that tailored suits often aren’t sewn very well and fall apart.
Worse the whole system might be dependent upon accelerating emissions and its possible that merely maintaining current emissions will prevent significant anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2. And its possible we won’t be aware of that because of natural drivers of increased CO2.
I mean what we are faced with is a battle between religion and science. Post Normal Science religion takes as the control model whatever the science community wants it to be. Just like the Priests and Witch Doctors of the pagan era. Everything else must be lab approved, but the approved climate theory can’t be tested because its too “other worldly” for lab work.
Bill said: How do you know we caused all of the atmospheric imbalance?
Because all other options have been eliminated.
Bill said: thats based on a theory that our contribution doesn’t change the rate of natural sources.
If our contributions changed the rate of natural sources then those sources are not natural anymore.
Bill said: our 5ppm stunts natural sourcing by 4.9ppm/year.
1. You need to provide evidence to back that up.
2. If we really stunted those sources then they aren’t natural anymore.
3. Now you have a bigger problem. If natural sources were stunted by 4.9 ppm/yr which mostly offsets the 5 ppm/yr of human sources then the only way to get a +2.5 ppm/yr imbalance in the atmosphere is to reduce sinks by 2.5 ppm/yr. How are you going to do that while working in the confines of increased biomass and declining ocean pH? And are those sinks really natural anymore since we changed them?
Bill said: so without our emissions natural sourcing might be 104.9ppm.
If sources are that high without us then why was atmospheric CO2 confined to a very narrow range for thousands of years? And why had CO2 never (not once) rise above 400 ppm during any of the interglacial eras over the Quaternary Period?
Bill said: And provide evidence that no natural effect is causing atmospheric increases.
Scientists have been searching for a natural explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 for decades. They simply cannot find one.
Bill said: In other words with an average residency time of 7 years in the atmosphere the largest accumulation you could achieve in the atmosphere with 5ppm input and a limitless ocean reservoir is 35ppm
Nope. An average residence time of 7 years does not tell you anything about how ppm of the atmosphere get removed. All it tells you is how long a specific molecule stays in the atmosphere before it is exchange with another molecule. The mass in the atmosphere does not change…at all.
Residence Time – The amount of time a specific molecule remains in the atmosphere before it is exchanged with another molecule without any change in the total mass of the gas.
Adjustment Time – The amount of time a unit of mass remains in the atmosphere before it is permanently removed.
RT and AT are two very different concepts that get conflated far too often. For example, consider a hypothetical Earth with 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sources are 100 ppm/yr and sinks are 100 ppm/yr. The RTe=4 years while ATe=infinite. Do you see why? The atmospheric concentration of 400 ppm stays that way indefinitely yet the molecules are still be exchanged at a rapid pace due to the 100 ppm/yr exchange rate.
Bill said: Thus the function of a long period input of 5ppm is 35ppm + 78ppb*#years.
That’s bad math because you are using RT to make a calculation that only works with AT.
Bill said: With a pre-industrial 280ppm and a current 410ppm at most you are looking at human emissions being responsible for 1/3rd the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (45/130).
Then where did the other 85 ppm (660 GtCO2) come from?
Remember that biomass is increasing and ocean pH is declining. In fact, the biosphere and hydrosphere mass has increased by 1000 GtCO2. So…
Where did the other 660 GtCO2 (85 ppm) come from to increase the atmosphere?
Where did the other 1000 GtCO2 come from to increase the hydrosphere and biosphere?
Where did the other 1340 GtCO2 of humans emissions go that we have not yet accounted for?
Bill said: But observations are making that rather dicey with surface temperatures responding at only 50% of the rate it should.
Surface temperatures and oceanic heat content are both responding in accordance with expectations from a consideration of all climate forcing agents.
Bill underscores several strong arguments. The alarmist case which bdgwx espouses relies on the assumption that natural emissions have remained constant and therefore all the growth in CO2 can be blamed on human emissions. There is no justification for this unless you can prove that temperature has no effect on CO2 emissions and assume that all the human emissions have been included in the Boden et al. estimates.
Another argument against total growth in CO2 due to humans is the equilibration phenomena that Bill describes. The growth in CO2 is not a one way transfer of CO2 to the sinks. The sinks push back as their concentrations increase as well.
And the religious argument also applies. Why doesn’t bdgwx admit that we need more emissions data and more scrutinization of the CO2 models before jumping to conclusions? Have the climate change high priests forbidden it?
bdgwx,
Please stop with the RT/AT obfuscation. You’re beginning to sound like Nate. If all the fossil fuels were dumped into the atmosphere at once, what percentage of the atmosphere would remain FF origin after 50 years (10 e-times)? Answer: somewhere between what it is now and the percent of FF on the planet = 100 * 2000/40000 or 5%. When will all FF emissions be removed from the air? Answer: Never.
“Please stop with the RT/AT obfuscation. Youre beginning to sound like Nate.”
Its a badge of honor.
Evasion-King Chic is beginning to apply his favorite new word to anyone who offers facts he just cant rebut.
Its not an obfuscation to point out that a KEY piece of evidence cited by Salby and Berry is completely misrepresented.
That C14 relaxation is not equal to mass relaxation is simple to understand, but Chic still cant manage it, thus he must pretend it doesnt matter and insult those who are skeptical.
Obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. “[What Nate claims] is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them.”
As King of Obfuscation, Nate reserves his right to avoid explicitly stating what he’s trolling about.
Chic you find the simple point that adjustment time and residence time are not the same to be “obscure, unclear, or unintelligible” even though the point has been explained countless times by countless people, here and from mainstream science and smart skeptics like Freeman Dyson and Roy Spencer.
Its not credible that your lack of understanding after all that is due to the explainers trying to make it obscure.
Stand up and take some responsibility.
bdgwx says: ”Bill said: How do you know we caused all of the atmospheric imbalance?
Because all other options have been eliminated.”
How were they eliminated bdgwx. As you well know system momentum covers in excess of a thousand years. A change in clouds a thousand years ago could still be causing the ocean to warm and expel CO2. CO2 peaks some 800 years after temperatures peak.
And it can take in excess of a thousand years for temperatures to peak after say a change in clouds. Claiming everything has been eliminated is the hogwash, non-scientific lies you have bought hook, line, and sinker into.
bdgwx says: ”Bill said: thats based on a theory that our contribution doesn’t change the rate of natural sources.
If our contributions changed the rate of natural sources then those sources are not natural anymore.”
Who gives a damn if they are natural or not. The word nature is nothing but a biased concept dreamed up by people that don’t like people. People are part of nature. what we emit is as natural as the farts of a skunk.
The fact is the rate of gasification of CO2 out of the oceans is controlled by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus if we emit CO2 its going to change that equation and the ocean will emit less. The thing you need to grasp is that there currently may not be an equilibrium between the ocean and atmosphere and the atmosphere is gaining CO2 naturally. If we join the part our emissions may be traded not on the amount it takes to change the amount of CO2 in the sky but instead the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plus the amount of CO2 in the ocean.
That means your 5ppm for the atmosphere is diluted by the ocean down to .08ppm.
bdgwx says: ”Bill said: our 5ppm stunts natural sourcing by 4.9ppm/year.
1. You need to provide evidence to back that up.”
thats incorrect. I am not trying to sell any physics here. You are the one trying to sell physics.
One can design an experiment with gases in a bottle with water, introduce a measured amount of additional gas and see if it all stays in the air. It won’t. Henry’s law says it won’t.
We aren’t able to do it for the oceans because photosynthesis in the photo zone of the ocean is converting CO2 into carbohydrates and a highly variable rate over the entire ocean surface and depleting CO2 in the upper layer of the ocean.
How much it varies is determined by the availability of other minerals, the temperature of the water, the turpidity of the water, etc. No science there thus no science on the figures you are trying to sell.
bdgwx says: ”If sources are that high without us then why was atmospheric CO2 confined to a very narrow range for thousands of years?” glacial periods?
bdgwx says:
”And why had CO2 never (not once) rise above 400 ppm during any of the interglacial eras over the Quaternary Period?”
We really don’t know that.” Yes its a favorite theory right now but these historical science favorite theories are changing all the time as new discoveries are made. Lets just say nobody has found evidence of that yet.
bdgwx says: ”Residence Time – The amount of time a specific molecule remains in the atmosphere before it is exchanged with another molecule without any change in the total mass of the gas.”
The correct definition is what is the average time a molecule remains in the atmosphere before its absorbed by the ocean or the biosphere.
Some of those molecules may be replaced. All are only replaced if the system is in equilibrium.
Under your definition you would need to know the equilibrium state of the atmosphere before you could provide residence time. . . .which under the current state of the science can’t be done.
bdgwx says: ”Adjustment Time – The amount of time a unit of mass remains in the atmosphere before it is permanently removed.”
Nothing is permanently removed unless flies off into space then its pretty much permanently removed. Again this is dependent upon knowing the current equilibrium state between the ocean and the atmosphere, which can be done in a bottle but not in the world for the reasons listed above.
bdgwx says:
”Bill said: Thus the function of a long period input of 5ppm is 35ppm + 78ppb*#years.
That’s bad math because you are using RT to make a calculation that only works with AT.”
Actually it doesn’t work with either because neither under your definition can be known. Under my definition it only works as a theoretical maximum number of molecules in the pipeline before they get sucked in an instantaneous equilibrium state. Indeed the system is far more complicated than that. But in reality what you are faced with is not knowing if the ocean is emitting faster than its absorbing or vice versa. so you are trying to judge my math using your definitions. . . .which are either wrong or useless.
bdgwx says: ”Bill said: With a pre-industrial 280ppm and a current 410ppm at most you are looking at human emissions being responsible for 1/3rd the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (45/130).”
Then where did the other 85 ppm (660 GtCO2) come from? Understand that what I am arguing here is what you can argue as a minimum under a state of equilibrium. The 7 years the average molecule float around before going into the ocean can arguably create a backlog (pipeline) when you are stating emissions on a yearly basis. I am not arguing its the answer. Folks can argue (without evidence) its more or its less.
bdgwx says:
”Remember that biomass is increasing and ocean pH is declining. In fact, the biosphere and hydrosphere mass has increased by 1000 GtCO2. So…”
Peanuts!
bdgwx says:
”Where did the other 660 GtCO2 (85 ppm) come from to increase the atmosphere?
Where did the other 1000 GtCO2 come from to increase the hydrosphere and biosphere?
Where did the other 1340 GtCO2 of humans emissions go that we have not yet accounted for?”
Using your numbers bdgwx of 5ppm emissions to the atmosphere equates to 78ppb in the entire system. I already did some math on how many parts each of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere will get. . . .completely ignoring of course the completely unknown rate of accumulation and dissipation of mineral deposits.
bdgwx says:”Bill said: But observations are making that rather dicey with surface temperatures responding at only 50% of the rate it should.
Surface temperatures and oceanic heat content are both responding in accordance with expectations from a consideration of all climate forcing agents.”
Yes the suit tailors are working 24/7 to make sure the theory fits the mannequin.
Bill this is a case study of the Gish Gallop. So many false or misleading declarations in there, its impossible for us to keep up with or correct them all.
How bout trying to be concise, and getting to the one or two points?
Nate says:
“How bout trying to be concise, and getting to the one or two points?”
Sure point one would be that the entire case for alarm about climate change is a gish gallop. Since I am NOT arguing a belief of the correct answer the only option is to give the gish gallop a response which looks exactly like a gish gallop.
Point two would be if you or anybody else could make a concise argument of one or two points that is supportable and not resting on an untested theory, that would obviate the need for arguing so many different points.
That sums it up nicely, Bill.
Nate says: “Chic you find the simple point that adjustment time and residence time are not the same to be obscure, unclear, or unintelligible even though the point has been explained countless times by countless people, here and from mainstream science and smart skeptics like Freeman Dyson and Roy Spencer.”
Bottom line is without human emissions the ocean is either net absorbing CO2 or net dissipating CO2 into the atmosphere. This depends upon Henry’s law.
Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere, considering only Henry’s law, would either speed up how fast the ocean absorbs CO2 or slow how fast it dissipates it.
Add in warming and the ocean will speed up the dissipation of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.
Thus in a warming world some of the increases in CO2 are not man made.
We know the ocean continues to warm from the last little glacial period about 300 years ago. Thus some of the observed warming is not due to mankind.
Estimates of residence/adjustment time varies tremendously this is for the reasons I have already stated, namely insufficient data to conclude accurately one way or the other. But the suit tailors will find a number that fits their theory and it will probably change the next time they do the work like they have to keep fixing thermometers too.
bill,
There is one crucial point I want to address here right away.
It sounds like everyone agrees that in the real world a pulse of CO2 will likely disrupt natural sources and sinks.
But here’s the thing…those natural sources and sinks aren’t really natural anymore. They are now anthroprogenically modulated; at least partly.
So if a source, which was 100% naturally modulated prior to humans, suddenly increases its rate because of something humans did then that increase is not natural anymore. It is anthroprogenic.
When attributing anthroprogenic responsibility you obviously include direct human sources and sinks but you also include the change in the original/natural sources and sinks that occurred because of humans.
bdgwx says:
“So if a source, which was 100% naturally modulated prior to humans, suddenly increases its rate because of something humans did then that increase is not natural anymore. It is anthropogenic.
When attributing anthropogenic responsibility you obviously include direct human sources and sinks but you also include the change in the original/natural sources and sinks that occurred because of humans.”
In the case I outlined bdgwx the natural system mitigated our anthropogenic emissions to little or no net impact. I am not claiming thats a fact I am claiming its one of many possibilities. Increased CO2 may actually be good for us and probably is and we may not even be responsible for a significant portion of it.
Lets put it another way say it is natural and the climate is warming as a result, would we be so enthusiastic about changing that? Not hardly! This is a battle for power and money not climate change. Without a significant share of wealth belonging to ogres there is no power or money to take from anybody.
Nothing inherently wrong with being anthropogenic in nature. We are part of nature and various aspects of nature change the natural system. Trying to single out anthropogenic vs natural doesn’t provide any additional important information. As human beings we will look at any change, including anthropogenic, and through our perspective of what is good for us we will make changes to prevent harm.
Building flood control channels, building dikes, building flood control impoundments are all examples of that. Thus the word anthropogenic is only a necessity for the purpose of smearing certain people. Thats not exactly being neighborly.
“Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere, considering only Henry’s law, would either speed up how fast the ocean absorbs CO2 or slow how fast it dissipates it.
Add in warming and the ocean will speed up the dissipation of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.
Thus in a warming world some of the increases in CO2 are not man made.”
Bill these are qualitative statements, not quantitative.
As you know from auditing, being quantitative is essential.
In this instance, the quantitative effect of Henry’s law dependence on a 1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is nowhere near large enough to account for the 130 ppm rise in atm CO2.
Then there is ocean chemistry and the Revelle factor that needs to be considered, which means that the ocean will only abs*orb the 130 ppm of added atomospheric CO2 over centuries.
Nate says: ”Bill these are qualitative statements, not quantitative. As you know from auditing, being quantitative is essential.”
Of course you are right there. However, I am not drawing an audit conclusion Nate. I am looking at the current state of science and noting the problem you are speaking about. Fact is there is insufficient data to understand to draw any conclusion at all. thats the point I am making.
Feel free to lay out a quantitative case based in empirical science Nate, since it appears nobody has.
Nate says:
”In this instance, the quantitative effect of Henry’s law dependence on a 1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is nowhere near large enough to account for the 130 ppm rise in atm CO2.”
That would be a great argument Nate if you actually had a quantitative case to establish that.
Nate says: ”Then there is ocean chemistry and the Revelle factor that needs to be considered, which means that the ocean will only abs*orb the 130 ppm of added atomospheric CO2 over centuries.”
I had the pleasure of having met Dr. Revelle on more than one occasion. A very fine scientist who also believed as I do that the science case for CO2 being a problem was too incomplete for action. Not that that is conclusive either as we Dr. Fauci told us we didn’t need to wear face masks when a reporter asked him why he wasn’t wearing one.
In this case you should understand that the Revelle factor is about the ocean absorbing CO2. . . .not releasing it. The Revelle factor is often quoted in climate change research because of the assumption that the release of carbon dioxide from humans may potentially be causing ocean acidification. The research by Dr. Revelle was working toward estimating how long excess CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.
However one has to make an assumption about the equilibrium state of the entire system regarding the presence of CO2 to utilize Revelle’s work. This is the same type of unsupported assumption regarding the warming of the planet from an assumed equilibrium. This allows scientists to claim without evidence that all the modern warming and atmospheric CO2 increases are human caused. Many scientists have criticized this assumption and well they should because its tantamount to assuming guilt without proof.
Worse the assumption puts the brakes on any attempt to establish the system was not in equilibrium upon the advent of the industrial age. . . .despite the fact we know that the world can be out of equilibrium for thousands of years as the system adjusts to a new regime. thats a no brainer and its argued adamantly by proponents of CO2 emissions being a problem going so far as to argue we must act now or the die will be cast for a thousand years or more.
One only needs to turn that argument around and ask how we know the planet was in equilibrium at the advent of the industrial age 150 years ago. I don’t think you will be able to find a scientific answer to that question, yet it is the most critical question of all.
“Fact is there is insufficient data to understand to draw any conclusion at all.”
The data is plenty and climate science has understood much of it.
If YOU are neither aware of the data nor understand it, that does not mean it hasnt been observed and understood by the scientific community.
‘In this instance, the quantitative effect of Henry’s law dependence on a 1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is nowhere near large enough to account for the 130 ppm rise in atm CO2.’
“That would be a great argument Nate if you actually had a quantitative case to establish that.”
This is a an excellent example, where you were ignorant of the Henrys’ law behavior of the ocean, and the Revelle factor, yet that didnt stop you from making sweeping statements about the ocean.
The temperature dependence of co2 solubility in seawater is easily looked up.
The T dependence of Henrys law for seawater gives a 3% reduction in solubility for a 1 C of warming. A more sophisticated analysis gives ~ 4%. http://ocean.mit.edu/~stephd/Omtaetal_GBC_2011.pdf
That means @ preindustrial 275 ppm, a 1 C rise will give 4 % or 11 ppm of increase in atm Co2 concentration.
Revelle factor takes account of the ability of the ocean chemistry to abs*orb atm Co2. Look it up.
If you understood it you would understand that if the atmosphere increases its carbon concentration by 50 % the surface ocean will only increase its total carbon concentration by ~ 5 %.
Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries.
Nate says:
”The data is plenty and climate science has understood much of it.
If YOU are neither aware of the data nor understand it, that does not mean it hasnt been observed and understood by the scientific community.”
I always love it when some moron starts appealing to authority. “Scientific Community” does that mean if you don’t agree you are not a member of the scientific community?
Nate says: ”This is a an excellent example, where you were ignorant of the Henrys law behavior of the ocean, and the Revelle factor, yet that didnt stop you from making sweeping statements about the ocean.
The temperature dependence of co2 solubility in seawater is easily looked up.”
Actually its you who doesn’t understand. You are quoting out physics like the Revelle factor when my comments had absolutely nothing to do with Revelle factor.
Nate says: ”
The T dependence of Henrys law for seawater gives a 3% reduction in solubility for a 1 C of warming. A more sophisticated analysis gives ~ 4%. http://ocean.mit.edu/~stephd/Omtaetal_GBC_2011.pdf”
Here is the key: ”any global warming due to an
increasing amount of carbon in the atmosphere leads to a
lower oceanic carbon uptake which in turn increases the
warming ”
Nothing I have said disagrees with that. The study goes forward into an analysis with global warming as the central assumption of the study.
I have said in a post in this thread that it all harkens back to that one assumption. But people who don’t understand that fact keep going on following every seam of the tailored suit as if each stitch was more proof of that assumption. Thats circular reasoning Nate.
Nate says: ”That means @ preindustrial 275 ppm, a 1 C rise will give 4 % or 11 ppm of increase in atm Co2 concentration.”
Under the assumption of oceanic/atmosphere equilibrium (which is acknowledged a second time in the conclusion) a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere solely from emissions would come out not 10%, not 11%, not twice, but 2.2 times the CO2 currently in the atmosphere as a result of additional ocean outgassing.
If the warming though came from the sun without any additional human emissions the equilibrium point for a 3c rise in temperature would be for the ocean to outgas 336ppm to maintain the equilibrium.
That doesn’t sound like 11ppm to me in total Nate. If you start with 280ppm back at the beginning of the industrial age, you end up with 616ppm for the doubling plus the additional ocean outgassing for the ocean to maintain equilibrium with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Have I misinterpreted the study you put up?
Nate says:
“Revelle factor takes account of the ability of the ocean chemistry to abs*orb atm Co2. Look it up.
If you understood it you would understand that if the atmosphere increases its carbon concentration by 50 % the surface ocean will only increase its total carbon concentration by ~ 5 %.
Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries.”
I am not going to check your figures and just say one more time. . . my discussion of this, in this thread, has nothing to do with the ocean absorbing CO2. My statement was regarding the possibility of an existing imbalance between the ocean and the atmosphere that dates back a considerable period of time that has not been resolved. The stuff you are throwing at me does nothing to dispel that possibility but instead assumes the ocean and atmosphere are in Henry’s law equilibrium for CO2. Further the authors of the study you linked to explicitly states thats an assumption:
”Throughout this article, we have assumed that the
carbon system in the ocean is at equilibrium with atmospheric pCO2”
Bill,
Nate has no idea what is going on. He simply mouths the talking points of the IPCC and their lemmings. A major clue is statements like this, “Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries.” He cannot back that up with any firm data, especially any realistic estimate of how many “centuries.”
Nate is an obfuscating troll. That’s what he does.
Nate says:
‘In this instance, the quantitative effect of Henrys law dependence on a 1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is nowhere near large enough to account for the 130 ppm rise in atm CO2.’
Bill says: ‘That would be a great argument Nate if you actually had a quantitative case to establish that.’
I give him what he asks for:
“The T dependence of Henrys law for seawater gives a 3% reduction in solubility for a 1 C of warming. A more sophisticated analysis gives ~ 4%.”
Which gives 11 ppm rise in atm CO2, negligible compared to the observed 140 ppm rise.
These are staightforward facts that suppprt what he said would be ‘a great argument’. He does not dispute them.
But he still dismisses them as “a tailored suit”.
Clearly Bill’s beliefs are not dependent on the facts.
“Nate is an obfuscating troll” and Chic is still needing someone to blame for his lack of understanding.
If I were to provide him with the supporting evidence he seeks, as I did with Bill, he will still not understand it and call it obfuscation.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/carbon+chemistry++
The carbon content of the surface ocean, DIC, only increases from 1893 ppm to 2040 ppm, or 7.7% while the atm concentration of CO2 has increase by 100%.
This is what I meant when I say “Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low”
You can label this obfuscation or a tailored suit, but it is simply what the evidence indicates that the ocean carbon chemistry is doing.
Can you show how it is wrong?
If not, then according to the Berry principle that the outflow of carbon should be proportional to its concentration, we should agree that the outflow of carbon from the ocean surface (mixed layer) to the deep ocean will only increase by ~ 7.7% while the atm carbon has increased by 100%.
Thus the sink rate to of carbon from the atmosphere thu the mixed layer and to the deep ocean will be very slow.
It looks those figures are from someone’s model calculations of what would happen after a doubling of CO2. Have you checked those calculations or are you just obfuscating again?
How slow is that mixed layer to the deep ocean?
That right there is huge and not just for that issue.
Understanding of the oceans is by far the largest hole in the climate change theory and it is amazingly huge.
Answering one question would help immensely. An accurate and reliable ocean model that explains why 95% of the ocean is about 13C to 15C colder than the surface when it is completely enveloped by the surface and the core of the earth only offers a source of heat and no significant heat sink in relationship to the heat capacity of the ocean.
All this going on and every proponent of CAGW is concerned about an alleged and unmeasured 6/10ths of a degree imbalance at 12,000 meters above the surface and wants to ignore the measured ~12C imbalance below the thermocline which is an average of 150 meters under the surface of the ocean.
Its can’t be radiation, it can’t be conductive processes as that would be about a 12C warming influence that has to do about 14C by the time it gets to the bottom of the ocean. So that leaves ocean currents and direct injection of high latitude super cold waters that is probably accelerated during periods of low sea ice.
Now this super cold injection water is very high CO2 content as well. And what is it doing to the ocean bottoms? Well we know that its cooling the ocean, if it isn’t doing that the ocean would be 15C at the bottom as it as at the top.
If its accelerated its cooling it more. How much? Nobody knows because we don’t measure anything below the top half of the ocean. That might well mean more missing heat as current model defenders ascribe plug values for the missing heat to be residing there. the question of course they haven’t answered is how does it gets there?
Everywhere you look around climate models you find gaping holes all over the place like bullet holes in a well bucket.
Chic,
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/abstract.shtml
The PMEL group has done extensive measurements of ocean carbon, as well as modeling. Here is one of their articles.
“Have you checked those calculations or are you just obfuscating again?”
Feel free to check their calculations, find the flaws, and point out what they’ve done wrong.
‘Answering one question would help immensely. An accurate and reliable ocean model that explains why 95% of the ocean is about 13C to 15C colder than the surface when it is completely enveloped by the surface and the core of the earth only offers a source of heat and no significant heat sink in relationship to the heat capacity of the ocean.’
Bill, this is not a mystery. It is basic physics of density and buoyancy.
Why do you so often assume that your ignorance is equivalent to science’s ignorance?
Nate, density and buoyancy explains why the cold ocean bottom doesn’t quickly mix with the upper layer. This eliminates convection as a means of warming the ocean bottom.
Radiation doesn’t warm it either because it doesn’t operate within liquids and solids.
If the ocean were a solid the bottom of the ocean would be much hotter than the top because of conduction from the core. Core heat would completely overcome the cold water without overturning going on and the temperature profile would look like the earth’s crust.
If overturning varies, which it appears it may do and is postulated by quite a few scientists even suggesting it would even create a regional ice age by stalling by stopping certain northerly running warm currents (which would cause mean global surface temperature to rise) this variation could explain much of the multi-decadal temperature fluctuation seen in the surface temperature records.
Therefore one can conclude that cold water via convection (not hot water) over the long term is moving to the bottom of the ocean. this overcomes both heat from the core and heat from above the thermocline that would heat it to much hotter than it is.
So you didn’t answer the question nor even recognized the correct question.
“Answering one question would help immensely.”
Still no questions that science hasnt already answered Bill.
Again being quantitative helps.
The heat emanating from the crust is < 0.1 W/m2. It would take a year to heat a 1 m thick layer of water by 1degree C. Then, because of lower density it will simply rise toward the surface.
Ocean currents do move water around the globe, and that includes cold arctic water which sinks to the depths of the mid Atlantic.
Where is the mystery?
Nate, you didn’t answer the question you were asked. In forced heating systems the key parameter is the exchange rate.
How fast does the water under the thermocline mix via injection of cold surface water. that question is important to keeping the bottom of the ocean cold and important to other things like alkalinity.
You only gave the heating rate from the core and claimed it just floated away. But you didn’t describe the water cooling system that keeps 95% of the ocean near freezing cold. . . .unless of course you believe the bottom water sits there still until it warms an average over 15C before rising.
If the system were limited in the way you describe of simply convecting heat away the entire ocean would be as warm as the surface.
Bill,
” you didnt describe the water cooling system that keeps 95% of the ocean near freezing cold. ”
Did you miss this part?:
“Ocean currents do move water around the globe, and that includes cold arctic water which sinks to the depths of the mid Atlantic.”
Is the Arctic not cold?
Lake Superior is 4 degrees C at its bottom, year round, just as it should behave according to physics.
I dont see why you think this is a big mystery..
Nate says:
” you didnt describe the water cooling system that keeps 95% of the ocean near freezing cold. ”
Did you miss this part?:
“Ocean currents do move water around the globe, and that includes cold arctic water which sinks to the depths of the mid Atlantic.”
Is the Arctic not cold?
Lake Superior is 4 degrees C at its bottom, year round, just as it should behave according to physics.
I dont see why you think this is a big mystery..
——————-
——————-
——————-
Pretty easy to see why you are so messed up. All you ever needed to know was that CO2 absorbed infrared and you believed everything else dished up for your right?
The request was for ”An accurate and reliable ocean model that explains why 95% of the ocean is about 13C to 15C colder than the surface”
FYI, accurate and reliable means quantified and validated.
“FYI, accurate and reliable means quantified and validated.”
All your concerns have been addressed and still you seem to be looking for a problem, but you can’t put your finger on what it is.
Nate says:“FYI, accurate and reliable means quantified and validated.”
All your concerns have been addressed and still you seem to be looking for a problem, but you can’t put your finger on what it is.
————————-
————————-
You are a moron Nate. I post that we need more science on the ocean to understand a variety of processes and you post there is no problem.
In addition you are ignorant on the situation in Lake Superior. Lake Superior completely mixes every year and its mean temperature throughout the lake is 4c. The system of mixing in Lake Superior is not the same as it is for the oceans where about 95% of the ocean is around 1c. Since you obviously didn’t know that how can you claim to know how it works?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-462086
Bill, the point is Im not the one going around constantly claiming that science doesnt understand x, y, and z.
When the reality is that it is Bill who doesnt understand x, y, and z.
You oddly assume that since YOU dont understand something then science doesnt either.
I have certain science expertise. But when I delve into a new area, and something doesnt make sense to me, my presumption is not that it must be wrong, it is that I need to understand this better.
Nate, more delving and less obfuscating, please.
Skeptical scientists presume all hypotheses are wrong and try to prove otherwise. It is called the null hypothesis and is a key step in the scientific process.
Skepticism based on ignorance is faux skepticism.
“Skeptical scientists presume all hypotheses are wrong and try to prove otherwise.”
I have yet to see you being skeptical of Berry or Salby’s hypotheses.
I have seen you presume anthro CO2 and AGW hypotheses wrong, but never seen you try to prove otherwise.
Nate says:””Skeptical scientists presume all hypotheses are wrong and try to prove otherwise.”
I have yet to see you being skeptical of Berry or Salbys hypotheses.
I have seen you presume anthro CO2 and AGW hypotheses wrong, but never seen you try to prove otherwise.”
Berry’s and Salby’s hypothesis has gathered enough steam for it adherents to want to screw with me and my freedom. If it gets to that I might even read their theory.
Nate says:
April 21, 2020 at 2:52 PM
”Skepticism based on ignorance is faux skepticism.”
Nate you are funnier than a barrel full of monkeys. You aren’t going to be skeptical unless you are ignorant.
The only trick is knowing when you are ignorant. People who tend towards skepticism are pretty good at recognizing that. People who don’t recognize their ignorance are stupid.
Chic was the one that pointed out “Skeptical scientists presume all hypotheses are wrong”
By this definition, both you and Chic are faux skeptics.
You guys are only skeptical of hypotheses that don’t fit with your ideology/religion/politics.
I see no evidence that your skepticism of these issues is informed by the scientific facts.
Case in point. “Berrys and Salbys hypothesis has gathered enough steam for it adherents to want to screw with me and my freedom.”
This is why your posts on science have little credibility.
Nate says: ”Chic was the one that pointed out ”Skeptical scientists presume all hypotheses are wrong”
By this definition, both you and Chic are faux skeptics.
You guys are only skeptical of hypotheses that dont fit with your ideology/religion/politics.”
A faux skeptic is somebody who believes he is a skeptic and isn’t Nate. Where do you get the evidence that Chic and myself only believe hypotheses that fit with our ideology/religion/politics.
Name one.
Nate says: ”I see no evidence that your skepticism of these issues is informed by the scientific facts.”
Nate you have already admitted your non-skepticism isn’t informed by any scientific facts when you said you trusted a certain sector of the scientific community.
The opinion of the scientific community isn’t a scientific fact. Nobody has ever anointed them with the power to make life and death decisions for the public and the public in return has not legislated that their opinions must meet high levels of confidence. None of those must apply for you to voluntarily believe them, but both should apply for that belief to result in a mandate.
Nate says: ”Case in point. Berrys and Salbys hypothesis has gathered enough steam for it adherents to want to screw with me and my freedom.
This is why your posts on science have little credibility.”
Explain Nate how you come to that conclusion. Science is always uncertain, part and parcel to being free is the ability to determine what level of certainty is important to you. It should be very high because your life is at stake. That is unless you grossly undervalue life of others in order to advance your own opinion.
I get there is a large cadre of folks dreaming of a juggernaut society with everybody marching in column and file order goosestepping on the basis of minimal certainty. . . .best science available. . . .precautionary approach. . . .and post normal science. But thats exactly what the Nazis did and other such world conquerors that have preceded and followed them. Study your history in order to avoid reliving it. People like to simply label these people as evil. But the truth is they were only acting like you. . . .big know it alls on dodgy science https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/nazi-racial-science
“This is why your posts on science have little credibility.”
“Explain Nate how you come to that conclusion”
Its bleeding obvious. Your posts are filled with evidence of your bias against science in general, and especially science they may lead to policies you dont like.
Nate: “I have yet to see you being skeptical of Berry or Salby’s hypotheses.”
Then you need to read this:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/#comment-72272
Nate: “I have seen you presume anthro CO2 and AGW hypotheses wrong, but never seen you try to prove otherwise.”
This is why you are the King of Obfuscation. What the heck does “presume anthro CO2 and AGW hypotheses wrong” mean? I think they ARE wrong, because there is no indisputable evidence to the contrary. I can’t prove otherwise for the same reason you can’t prove the anthro CO2 and AGW hypotheses right.
Chic, I stand corrected, sort of. I see you correcting some of Berrys errors, mostly minor, in the manner of a peer reviewer. Nice work.
You also suggest he add land use emissions, which he agrees with me that they are already included in human emissions.
I dont see you being skeptical of the main ideas or premises in his work, which is what we provide here, to your infinite disdain.
He seems rather open to your critiques. You should try that sometime.
“What the heck does ‘presume anthro CO2 and AGW hypotheses wrong’ mean?”
You tell me, ‘skeptics presume all hypotheses wrong’ is your quote.
Nate says:
April 22, 2020 at 3:57 PM
“This is why your posts on science have little credibility.”
“Explain Nate how you come to that conclusion”
Its bleeding obvious. Your posts are filled with evidence of your bias against science in general, and especially science they may lead to policies you dont like.
———————
Bias against science? Where do you get that stupid idea? Only one possible place. You concluded about me because I don’t buy in hook, line, and sinker into your beliefs of climate catastrophe.
One example of thought about me when I have 40 years into the economic/scientific basis of policy. You have me completely stereotyped on the basis of one topic. I suppose you have put Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Roger Revelle (the grandfather of global warming), William Happer all top scientists including some members of the NAS plus thousands of other highly competent scientists that suggest the science isn’t there to support aggressive climate action all in the same category. Right?
“You tell me, skeptics presume all hypotheses wrong is your quote.”
Yes, and a bad one it was. Perhaps “skeptics don’t assume (or presume) hypotheses are right” is a better way of saying it.
Assume is a verb that means to suppose, to take for granted, to take upon, to don, or to undertake. In the shared meaning of “to suppose,” presume is usually used when you suppose based on probability, while assume is used when you suppose without any evidence.
Chic Bowdrie says:Yes, and a bad one it was. Perhaps skeptics dont assume (or presume) hypotheses are right is a better way of saying it.
————————–
Yes its absolutely a better way. Skepticism is not holding a preconceived notion. If skepticism included believing an idea was false then everybody would be a skeptic. Skepticism is what a jury is supposed to do. Namely not conclude on the guilt or innocence until all the evidence and testimony is presented. And if a reasonable doubt remains. . . .acquit. Nate wouldn’t wait for all the evidence and is ready to convict right now.
“Nate wouldnt wait for all the evidence and is ready to convict right now.”
Good analogy Bill. It seems every jury you would be on, if you followed the principles you espouse here, would be a hung jury.
If we act like juries are expected to, and try to come to a decision based on the available evidence, we would swiftly convict anthro carbon for the rise of atm CO2.
We have the means (emissions of the right size), the motive (conservation of mass), opportunity (emissions have been repeatedly observed at scene of the crimes at the time of the crimes), DNA evidence at the scene (isotope analysis), CSI analysis (ocean carbon cycle observations, etc, etc).
While you guys would be swayed by the closing argument of the defense, that maybe some unidentified perp, that no-one witnessed, has no identified means, motive or opportunity, perhaps did it.
Replied to the above one reply tag to high on the list. You will see it up there.
Nate says:
”I can admit that I dont understand lots of stuff that is not in my wheelhouse, while acknowledging that there are people who probably do understand it.”
Probably? How did you draw that conclusion? Did you rely on somebody else telling you that too?
Nate says:
”I can admit that people who fix my car, my knee, my computer know what they are doing in these areas, and I dont.
Why cant you?”
ROTFLMAO!!! For obvious reasons Nate I would rely on a doctor or mechanic if they had a good track record of fixing the very things I want them to fix for me. What have climate scientists fixed?
Let me take that a step further. If my doctor has never fixed a knee but fixed a toe, why would you let him fix your knee? Because you are scared shitless and can’t find anybody else to do it?
“If my doctor has never fixed a knee but fixed a toe, why would you let him fix your knee?”
Probably not.
Just as I wouldnt trust an auditor to man-splain to me what science just doesnt understand.
Nate says: ”If my doctor has never fixed a knee but fixed a toe, why would you let him fix your knee?”
Probably not.
Just as I wouldnt trust an auditor to man-splain to me what science just doesnt understand.
——————————–
Then you probably shouldn’t trust peer review to explain to you what is missing either. At least auditors have professional standards for determining completeness, accuracy,and consistency; whereas peer review makes no attempt at wide determination on any of that. The peer reviewer has no standards and thus often only comments on explicit areas in his area of expertise and interests.
Since auditing cannot be effective approaching a topic narrowly like that or without standards they approach it broadly and with standards. Expand the inquiry, obtain evidence of all material assertions, call in independent experts, etc. There are many books on the audit processes.
The process of auditing science is no different than any other numeric audit. You need a complete blueprint of the climate effect and the blueprint must include all numbers and equations for each step in a process.
A climate model ostensibly does that. but there is no real sense in auditing climate models because the outputs vary by more than an order of magnitude. that fact alone should determine an opinion on climate model output.
Judith Curry is a scientist that actually has written a good deal about that in a manner very similar to what an auditor would write. Namely highlight a large level of uncertainty. I think Curry named it the Uncertainty Monster. She did a very professional job.
The only thing she didn’t do which is unnecessary to do under the circumstances of climate model disagreement is actually determine if all the equations in the model are actually supported by known science. I know both Roy and Judith have explicitly copped to a leap of faith that is taught in all schools but remains untested in science. Since these people have lived and breathed that belief all their professional lives copping to it is a breath of fresh air. Dr. Lindzen has been making fun of the same leap of faith. All of them go along with it as they have no alternative.
but that is a key uncertainty that goes beyond climate models not agreeing with each other.
So don’t get on my case I am in good company. And you don’t have to believe me. Just go read Curry on the topic.
Bill,
You wouldnt hire your car mechanic to fix your knee. I doubt you would use him as a second opinion consult on your knee. Particularly if it was immediately apparent that he was confused about knee anatomy.
It would make just as much sense to assign you, an auditor, as a peer reviewer on an ice-core isotopic analysis paper. It is evident from your posts that you simply dont have the requisite experience and quantitative knowledge of all the background facts and theory to do that work.
Yet you do dismiss ice core analysis papers with a wave of the hand.
We will file that opinion in the circular file where it belongs.
And neither Judith Curry, Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen dismiss ice core analysis evidence. They use it regularly.
Nate says: ”It would make just as much sense to assign you, an auditor, as a peer reviewer on an ice-core isotopic analysis paper. It is evident from your posts that you simply dont have the requisite experience and quantitative knowledge of all the background facts and theory to do that work. Yet you do dismiss ice core analysis papers with a wave of the hand. We will file that opinion in the circular file where it belongs.”
I never asked you to believe me. I haven’t audited the ice core data Nate. I simply have read some of the science surrounding the ice core data and your point of view doesn’t fit at all with mainstream science. Further mainstream science discusses a lot of uncertainty in the ice core data. Further the ice core proxies show that between 1.5 and 2 deg C variances are common place. Plus there is recognized controversy in matching it to the current instrument record. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
As a result one cannot establish any alarming amount of warming in the industrial age that hasn’t occurred naturally in the past.
Nate says: And neither Judith Curry, Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen dismiss ice core analysis evidence. They use it regularly.
——————-
Yet another Nate strawman. Who said anything about completely dismissing ice core analysis? I use it all the time. I even used it above in reply to your comments that 2degC is not an uncommon variance in icecore data. And thats smoothed data chopping off the peak changes.
“Who said anything about completely dismissing ice core analysis? I use it all the time.”
Nate says: ‘Prior to that we have ice cores showing nearly flat CO2 levels at 275 ppm for 2 millennia up to late 1800s.’
Bill says: ‘I wouldnt be putting too much stock in any of that. The basis of these estimates have never been groundtruthed. In science when nobody knows the answer speculative science is acceptable to academic institutions. thats because there is no professional liability assigned.’
I guess that was another Bill. One that we should have ignored.
“I simply have read some of the science surrounding the ice core data and your point of view doesnt fit at all with mainstream science.”
Huh? How so? I was the one defending mainstream science on this one, Bill, while you (or some other Bill) was calling it ‘not groundtruthed’.
Are you getting this ‘science surrounding ice core data’ from the not-so-ground-truthed denialist blogosphere?
No you support one view point within mainstream science. I even provided a link to a ZEKE HAUSFATHER article above, a man that argues the side closest to you. But you and him are thousands of miles apart because Zeke recognizes a legitimate debate on the matters.
“On what basis do you accept the Bern model and reject Berry and Salby models?”
Both bdgwx and I and others have explained quite thoroughly why we reject Berry and Salby’s models.
Where were you?
The understanding of the carbon cycle is an accumulation of science facts over many decades. It is like a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle that has been worked on by many people.
Berry and Salby come along and insist that all that is unimportant. Berry offers a single equation (or a couple of equations) and a single e-time, and claims that is sufficient.
They want us to believe its all actually a toddler’s jig-saw puzzle.
Sorry, his model, as comforting and appealing as it is, is just too simple, and doesnt even try to account for all the available facts.
The C14 e time?
The 50% rise in atm CO2?
The ocean acidification?
The discrepancy with isotopic evidence?
The discrepancy with ice-cores, ocean sediments?
The discrepancy with ocean carbon content and fluxes?
The confusion on residence time?
The discrepancy with Revelle factors?
The accounting for the anthro carbon?
A quantitative temperature-driven CO2 mechanism?
None of these adequately explained.
It requires extraordinary evidence to dismiss all the hard won understanding of the complexity of the carbon cycle.
But Berry and Salby do not have that.
That is why we are very very skeptical. Why arent you?
So many assertions, so little to back them up. Only correlations, a failed Bern model, and centuries of adjustment times. Obfuscate on!
Why do you keep asking ‘what basis do you accept the Bern model and reject Berry and Salby models?’
and ask us to ‘back that up with any firm data’
We give you data, answers to your questions, try to explain with logical arguments. And your response is:
1. Get your panties in a bunch.
2. Toss ad-hom grenades.
3. Dismiss data with no justification.
4. Blame the messengers for your failure to understand.
5. Pretend we havent already given you plenty of good reasons for skepticism.
It seems pretty clear that you have zero interest in finding the truth.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-462619
“The point I made was simple but you dont seem to understand even the simplest of concepts. If we measure human emissions against the carbon in all of the carbon cycle, the actual tonnage of what we emit would be a drop in a bucket. I provided you with the calculations and it flew over the cuckoo nest.”
Simple yes, but missing the key point. Where have you been in all of this discussion?
The added amount is small, indeed, but you need to go further and account for where it is in the carbon cycle as a function of time.
You need to analyze the times scale that it takes for the added carbon to become evenly spread throughout the carbon cycle.
Specifically you need to understand its movement from the surface where it is added to the deep ocean where most carbon lives.
Nate says: You need to analyze the times scale that it takes for the added carbon to become evenly spread throughout the carbon cycle.
Specifically you need to understand its movement from the surface where it is added to the deep ocean where most carbon lives.
——————–
Good some progress. Now we are talking about where most of the carbon lives. The surface ocean is about 8.1pH. It rapidly drops from the surface down to about 500 meters were in the Pacific the pH is about 7.3 at 500 meters and 7.7 in the Atlantic. From there it gradually increases to for example to a maximum of 7.9 at 4000 meters in the Pacific. This gradient is believed to be a result of hydrostatic pressures at depth.
Thus there is no reason to believe that interchange from the surface to depth needs to be gradual. In fact that concept exemplified by your calculations using the Revelle Factor and the assumption that changes occur gradually at some slow rate of ocean overturning is now discredited science.
Scientists started with that belief then went into the field to confirm and found:
‘Instead, they found that people aren’t the only players changing the ocean carbon cycle. Over decades, natural cycles in weather and ocean currents alter the rate at which the ocean soaks up and vents carbon dioxide.’
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
The world is not a simple place and a lot more work needs to be done to understand it.
As a result its premature to attribute the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere to human causes. If for amusement assume that carbon in the air is entirely responsible for the climate being warm the planet at the range of sensitivities currently observed, if anthropogenic releases cause 75% of the extra carbon in the air then we are probably not going to cause warming of 1.5c. Also we actually don’t have much of an idea of how long all thats going to stay in the atmosphere either.
Thus uncertainty exists at many levels all of which must align directly and wholly with anthropogenic emissions to get to the IPCC estimates.
Much of this contrary science didn’t exist in 1988 yet the IPCC hangs on tooth and nail to the exact same figures and keeps upping the likelihood. But the real motivation for all that is they are after your lunch money.
And the rich folks are only going to agree to a solution that trickles it downward. What we really need is for folks like Leonardo DiCaprio to sell off that mega yacht of his and donate the proceeds to the University of his choice specifically for weather and climate research and throw in with the price of the yacht say the fuel savings he is going to experience by say flying economy on a 747. Can we rate that one FAT CHANCE also?
Running around looking to the people least able is really really low brow behavior.
‘In fact that concept exemplified by your calculations using the Revelle Factor and the assumption that changes occur gradually at some slow rate of ocean overturning is now discredited science.’
False. Show me evidence that it has been discredited.
Im quite familiar with the article you posted. You are misrepresenting it.
Its message is not that the Revelle was wrong, or anthro CO2 flux is not into the ocean, it is simply measuring and finding natural variations in those quantities.
It is akin to natural global temp variations NOT disproving that there is a long term warming trend.
Nate says: False. Show me evidence that it has been discredited.
Im quite familiar with the article you posted. You are misrepresenting it.
Its message is not that the Revelle was wrong, or anthro CO2 flux is not into the ocean, it is simply measuring and finding natural variations in those quantities.
It is akin to natural global temp variations NOT disproving that there is a long term warming trend.
—————-
Yes its about needing to understand natural variations. Thats all anybody here criticizing and skeptical of your overly simplistic estimates is saying. Its clear to me anyway if its not clear to you.
Your original calculation had nothing in it representing natural variation. Zip, zilch, nada.
And it appears you still aren’t comprehending how using mean values for the ocean isn’t feasible. The process described in the link I provided you shows now a focus on southern oceans. Most likely there also needs to be a focus on northern oceans so as to not miss any large gaps. IMO, the effort now is only exploratory in nature, scope, and resources deployed.
We indeed exist on a living planet because the chemical and physical processes on this planet are tremendously affected by all the life living on the planet. Its not just affected by humans.
Some believe the planet was suffocating for the lack of CO2 like a farmland with depleted soils. The fact that its economically viable to invest in building greenhouses for the sole purpose of sequestering added CO2 to spur biological activity is an indicator of that starvation.
Human emissions have moved the CO2 levels now up to 1/4 the levels commonly used by growers to maximize NOT biological activity but to maximize economic returns which would be a level of biological activity below the ideal level for the crops grown as investment in CO2 supplementation is an activity of diminishing returns as the amount of CO2 goes up. Thus the ideal level may be even higher at least for the crops.
All the while sequestered people behind computers with zero real time experience dispute the results as growers feed the world.
“And it appears you still arent comprehending how using mean values for the ocean isnt feasible.”
True. Difficult to comprehend nonexistent argument.
Nate says: -“And it appears you still arent comprehending how using mean values for the ocean isnt feasible.”
True. Difficult to comprehend nonexistent argument.
——————
You just don’t get the problem of uneven distribution of deep ocean carbon uptake and you continue to crank out and estimate using mean figures for the entire ocean when its virtually certain that ocean uptake is centered in high latitudes with the highest concentrations of carbon in the waters.
That isn’t a problem for your C14 analysis that is evenly distributed around the ocean. The C14 experience is only a good test (using means) for how much water is descending into the depths and it only works for things evenly distributed.
Scientists understand the issue and are working to fix it. The NOAA article explains why. Your problem is you uptake scientific information in a biased way and only absorb what you want to hear.
Why do you smooth out the usual decline in CO2 in the air during the northern hemisphere spring ? This is tampering with the data. Does not show the real facts.
Dr. Spencer is not “tampering” with data here. He is analyzing it.
He is removing seasonal and ENSO variation so that a controlled experiment can be performed.
The experiment is to test the hypothesis that the 2020 economic slowdown will have a noticeable effect on CO2 levels.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
My understanding is that we collectively use more energy if we all stay at home doing whatever than if we are at work. So the question is where are the cuts in emissions taking place?
Australia (which has drunk deep from the green energy poison) had to impose blackouts in order to ensure hospitals had reliable power. Can you imagine a grid that unreliable?
Travel?
I think most are in agreement that recessions can suppress emissions temporarily. And most are in agreement that the 2020 pandemic will suppress emissions as well…perhaps in an unprecedented way. The thing is…many of us think even an unprecedented emissions reduction will be too small to notice an impact on CO2 levels.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Dang!! I’ve been monitoring this for a while. And keeping mute.
I was hoping nobody would bring this up and have NOAA get any ideas and massage the data 😉
China is already ramping up again, but a second peak could be on the way for them. Also the rest of the world won’t really need much of their stuff like before, so they will be subdued before long, until the world starts back up to a higher capacity, that is. Great Recession II or Great Depression II? Stay tuned!
Can anyone show some references to daily data for March 2020 atmospheric CO2, for stations other than Mauna Loa, of which there are many. Prominent stations include Barrow Alaska, Cape Grim Tasmania, South Pole Antarctica, and there are others like Baring Head New Zealand etc.
Most of the searches I have done show nothing about year 2020, let alone March 2020. The daily data from NOAA at ML have a gap of several days in mid-March while the Scripps ML data are hourly/daily without this gap in data. Some station data sets stop at December 2018.
It is near impossible to work out what (if anything) is going on with global CO2 because of barriers to the release of recent data to the public. I thought we had moved on from the Phil Jones methodology of “Why should I give you my data when you just want to find something wrong with it?” or words to that effect. Geoff S
There is a resource from South Pole, if it is what you ask?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts
Geoff Sherrington
” I thought we had moved on from the Phil Jones methodology of ‘Why should I give you my data when you just want to find something wrong with it? ‘ ”
Is such a nonsense really necessary?
Google helps.
1. Monthly
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_gl.txt
2. Daily
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_trend_gl.txt
Please read the intro and all texts it links to; that might help you in getting rid of this ‘Phil Jones’ syndrome.
April 2020
year mth day cycl trend
2020 4 1 414.16 412.36
2020 4 2 414.18 412.37
2020 4 3 414.19 412.37
2020 4 4 414.21 412.38
2020 4 5 414.23 412.39
2020 4 6 414.25 412.40
2020 4 7 414.27 412.40
2020 4 8 414.29 412.41
OK for you, Mr Sherrington?
Rgds
J.-P. Dehottay
Bindidon says: ”Please read the intro and all texts it links to; that might help you in getting rid of this Phil Jones syndrome.”
Lets hope not. The Phil Jones “syndrome” describes the biggest credibility hole in policy science.
In private enterprise professionals are held liable for work below standards and criminal if its intentional. This give Joe Blow some comfort when he goes to the Doctor, hires and engineer, or reads audited financial information that he is NOT going to be harmed for inferior work and have the professional hop scotch away scot free.
The lack of a significant Phil Jones punishment does nothing but embolden others to do the same sort of thing. Obviously because there are no real standards for academic science beyond plagiarism the common man rightfully should remain extremely skeptical of any of it and no amount of repetition or popularity should quell that skepticism because with out standards like professionals have and recourse through the court system a scientist doesn’t have to stick to science and can insert non-scientifically based opinions in his work without disclaimers along with creating deceptive graphics, resisting people who want to replicate their work to make it scientific is all very very bad.
What is the answer? I don’t know but I do know when the accounting profession needed an answer it was the accounting profession that took the lead in it and that is the case in most of the professions because it is the professionals themselves that know best how to create standards to ensure consistent performance while allowing at the same time necessary creativity to improve the output of the profession.
In terms of stopping at home electricity usage goes up as does domestic gas.
In terms of fuel usage for transport it goes down. This is especially true for aviation.
Currently gives a net reduction.
In terms of pollution it has moved it from cities where the energy is used to the rural power generating centres.
Blackouts have been avoided in Europe due to gas fired power stations working overtime.
Dear Roy
Thanks for the informative update.
as a hobbyist, I have done an investigation into the CO2 warming thing, looking at it from a completely different angle, here
https://1drv.ms/w/s!At1HSpspVHO9pwx0EPc_q0yoFNKR?e=kE8DTl
I know you are pretty much the big expert on this…. If ever you have some time or do get some time, would you perhaps have a look at it, and let me know what you think of it.
I would very much appreciate any comment you can make.
You can click on my name for contact details.
Many thanks!
1) I used the assumption that a reduction in human sources will have little effect on natural sources at least out to only 1 year.
2) Maybe harmony wasn’t an appropriate word choice by me. I only mean to convey the idea that a reduction in human emissions (primarily through decreased travel) will not materially change natural emissions at least out to only 1 year.
3) I agree that human emissions probably do modulate “natural” emissions to some extent especially over the long term. But that begs the question…if what we do effects what nature does then are those “natural” emissions really natural to begin with? Same question for “natural” sources.
1) Using Dr. Spencer’s model, a 50% reduction in FF will cause an imbalance of 0.3 ppm in the first year followed by successively less imbalance until a new equilibrium is established about 10 ppm lower than now. My model goes to the same level only a lot faster. In both cases, the natural sources are assumed to be constant.
2) That is even more confusing. Why would human emissions change natural emissions? I assume you must mean the change in human emissions due to the virus won’t be detected in the short term. Well, that we already agreed on along with Chaamjamal whose says it isn’t detectable even in the long term:
“Therefore, given the uncertainty in our estimate of natural carbon cycle flows, it is not possible to determine the impact of fossil fuel emissions.”
3) I need to be more clear. I am making a distinction between natural sources of CO2 that have occurred for centuries before the industrial revolution and natural (IOW, not FF origin) sources that humans have ramped up of late. This includes all the farming required to feed the world. Energy to operate the machinery is FF origin, but cultivation produces CO2 that is not FF origin.
One more thing. Even if all natural emissions are considered human emissions, they must be discriminated from FF emissions. We can’t morally reduce CO2 emissions by limiting population growth. That means you, China.
1. Then his model is probably either increasing natural sources or decreasing natural sinks to keep the imbalance > 0.0 ppm/yr. Or perhaps he’s using different figures for human emissions. I don’t know. BTW…my 40 GtCO2 figure is for all human emissions…FF, land use changes, cement production, etc.
2. I don’t think human emissions would change natural emissions. That’s what I’m saying. I also don’t think pandemic induced reductions in emissions will be large enough to be detectable. The reason…even an unprecedented reduction in emissions is still smaller than seasonal variation.
3. Yeah. I consider farming related emissions or any emission that occurs via a natural process to still be anthroprogenic if it causes that natural process to deviate from what it would have been without human influence. I don’t think the current economic slowdown will have a material impact on these types of emissions though.
1. “I don’t know.” That’s obvious. Until you understand the math behind the models, all your back-of-the-envelope calculations are futile. Dr. Spencer uses same data and no changes in natural sources and sinks.
2. OK, more points of agreement.
3. So it sounds like you also agree that some non-fossil fuel CO2 sources have been increasing due to population growth.
Chic,
Salby hypothesizes and mathematically demonstrates that CO2 evolves as the time integral of temperature. And, also CO2 lags temperature on both short and long timescales. We see that short timescale lag in the yearly fluctuation of CO2, which is 90 degrees out of phase with temperature. Since the tropospheric temperature has been mostly level the last couple of decades and so, if it stays flat, we should start seeing the growth rate of CO2 start decreasing at some point. Or, maybe it’s falling now. It appears it might be.
Stephen,
I wholeheartedly agree with you and Salby. The temperature effect you describe is one thing. The point I am making is that there is likely an additional not yet quantifiable source of CO2 that contributes to the long term rise in CO2. The Salby/Harde/Berry models only fit the Mauna Loa data if there are sources of CO2 other than fossil fuels, cement manufacturing, and what is already credited to land-use changes in the Boden et alia data. The contribution of land-use changes is either grossly underestimated or there are additional sources unrelated to land-use change that have been increasing due to population growth.
Chic,
You mean other than natural? And, if so why do you think so?
“The contribution of land-use changes is either grossly underestimated or there are additional sources unrelated to land-use change that have been increasing due to population growth.”
Dont forget the possibility that the Berry/Salby/Harde models are wrong.
Stephen, if “CO2 evolves as the time integral of temperature.” is considered by you to be strong evidence of causation, why is the fact that CO2 evolves as the time integral of emissions not also considered strong evidence of causation?
The latter correlation at least has a clearly identified mechanism with a quantitatively predictable relationship, unlike the former.
That’s a good point Nate. The Salby model is no better (in fact worse) than what we already have, but with a dependency on a quantity (temperature) whose trajectory he can’t explain or predict. What use is a model if it cannot make predictions regarding the future?
Stephen,
Thanks for asking “You mean other than natural?” so that I can clarify.
Natural is a vague description, because it can be both anthropogenic or not. Volcanic emissions are natural, but that is ancient carbon like fossil fuels. Human sources are both ancient and recent. So one can break emissions down into four categories; ancient-human, ancient-nature, recent-human, and recent-nature.
Land-use changes are characterized as human sources. I assume Boden et alia are adequately accounting for that. What I find hard to believe is that they have quantified all the burning of wood and other natural fuel and all the plowing, gardening, and composting that has resulted from population growth over and above what is included in the gross land-use changes like deforestation. Who has been keeping track of all that?
bdgwx,
No it isn’t a good point Nate. CO2 evolves as a function of all emissions regardless of their source. Duh, that’s the Salby/Berry/Harde hypothesis.
Salby’s model is based on the same math as Berry and Harde. However, Salby focused on the temperature dependence in the short term. The others math addresses the long term effects.
Until you understand the math behind the models, you should avoid pontificating about them.
Salby’s model is this…
dr/dt = E(T) – A(r)
or
dr/dt = y*T – a*r
…where [r] is CO2 abundance, [t] is time, [y] is temperature sensitivity, [T] is temperature, and [a] is residence time. Note that E(T) = y*T and A(r) = a*r in his model.
What this is saying that the CO2 growth rate is driven only by the temperature and residence time. And note that [a] is the residence time and not the adjustment time which he estimates be between 5-10 years.
So as you can see his sources aren’t partly or even just strongly modulated by temperature they are entirely modulated by temperature in his model. And his sinks are not modulated by the mass removal rate, but the exchange rate of molecules. He provides no explanation or prediction of [T] in his model. That means his model is useless in predicting future CO2 growth rates. His model also happens fail when back testing it against eras in which we have CO2 and temperature data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8
And notice in the video Salby says absorp.t.ion (to be implied as a decrease in total mass) can be measured by the C14 bomb spike. Except…the CO2 bomb spike cannot be used to measure the rate at which CO2 mass decreases in the atmosphere. It can only be used to measure how quickly molecular exchanges take place. It’s the same old conflation of residence time vs adjustment time.
Also notice that his model completely ignores the 5 ppm/yr humans are emitting. And that he provides no accounting for actual source and sink fluxes. They’re just assumed based on temperature correlation and molecular exchange rates respectively.
The reason why he is able to get a correlation out of his model is because he tunes the [y] and [a] parameters to match [T] and [r]. It doesn’t matter if [r] drives [T] or [T] drives [r] in his model. The match will be there regardless. And his model provides no underlying reason why [T] drives [r] instead of the other way around. He just picks the causation direction…because. This all works because of the narrow range of time frames he back tests. And he rationalizes the mismatch on the early part of the period by claiming that [T] and [r] have large margins of error…far larger than they actually are. For example, he estimates [r] as being between 220 and 330 ppm back in 1880. This is what I mean when I say his model is not as good as what we already have. Like, not even remotely. Providing a model that doesn’t even match reality equally as well as what we already have is already a red flag. But when it also fails to provide a causative link it is DOA.
bdgwx,
Wonderful. You wrote Salby’s model and defined the terms properly except for residence time. [a] is the inverse of residence time (e-time).
Yes, his model leaves out the inflow of emissions. I’ll have to ponder the short term vs. long term significance of that.
Modulating by the exchange rate is not different than modulating by the mass removal rate. That is what [a] is.
His model is not designed to predict the future, but rather to explain the past. Temperature is an independent variable you can’t control.
Where does his video show failure when back testing?
Your speculation as to what Salby rationalizes will take some more consideration on my part. Nice work so far on your part though.
bdgwx,
I’m dropping my follow-up response down to a new thread.
1. I don’t have to understand or even know about someone else’s model to make my own order of magnitude estimate for the current economic slowdown and its impact on CO2 levels. My conclusion of no noticeable impact on CO2 levels from my simple back-of-the-envelope model could be wrong. We’re doing the experiment so we’ll see within the next few months either way.
3. Absolutely. Cement production and land use are prime examples.
“Absolutely. Cement production and land use are prime examples.”
Yes and these are already included in the emissions data. Wiki:
“Land-use change can be a factor in CO2 (carbon dioxide) atmospheric concentration, and is thus a contributor to global climate change.[2] IPCC estimates that land-use change (e.g. conversion of forest into agricultural land) contributes a net 1.6 0.8 Gt carbon per year to the atmosphere. ”
This is a small fraction of total human emissions.
As King of Obfuscation, Nate often butts in to offer irrelevant information.
Simply pointing out the glaring logical flaw which you continually ignore:
You believe FF emissions are too small to account for CO2 growth.
You want us to believe non-FF human emissions are big enough to account for CO2 growth.
But ALL available evidence shows the non-FF human driven emissions are < FF emissions.
Yesterday may have been the highest one-day reading on record:
417.91 ppm at Mauna Loa.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Perhaps its someone not exercising ‘social distancing’ and breathing all over the apparatus.
Mother Nature produces over 95% of atmospheric CO2. A small drop in anthropogenic CO2 is highly unlikely to ever be measurable. More important is that there are fewer contrails from jets blocking incoming sunlight. My bet is that if there is any anthropogenic impact on the climate from the CV it will be the warming of the oceans and an increase in atmospheric CO2. Won’t that be a wonderful outcome? Shutting down the economy and CO2 increases. The climate alarmists’ heads will explode.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/contrail-effect/
“Whether contrails cause a net cooling or a net warming, even whether their effect is something to worry about within the greater general concern about climate change, remains unclear.”
Blocking incoming high energy visible radiation is infinitely more impactful than trapping outgoing low energy LWIR.
What matters is if that warming radiation reached the oceans. Fewer contrails will warm the oceans, and warming oceans will release CO2. You don’t need a Ph.D to figure this one out. Explain the oceans and you explain the climate, no need to study CO2. It is a derivative of the Oceans.
Bindidon,
How cute of you to link to the only complete daily data set my searches have found, one that I mentioned already, with no mention of the ten or so other weather stations around the globe with no public data at all later than January 2020.
I have detected a determination by some bodies not to release data less than a year old. I do not name them here because they might become cooperative with further discussion. Like Phil Jones did. Geoff S
Geoff
[I have detected a determination by some bodies not to release data less than a year old.]
Look on the bright side, now you have an entire year to blabber about a new conspiracy theory!
Nate,
Indeed yes, I might have a year free for conspiracist blabber.
However, because I am a rather experienced scientist, I have no special knowledge, as you do, about blabber. Please advise me how, theoretically, I should go about it.
What is it with you advocates of global warming, that you have such a strong desire to curtail data release, to inhibit hard, proper science and to be so abusive? (Face palm). Geoff S
@Geoff
Sorry for the rude comment. I almost immediately regretted posting it.
Here is what made me angry – you are questioning the integrity of folks you have never met and know almost nothing about. They are not present on this thread and have no way to defend themselves.
S,
So you disagree that science is belief in the ignorance of experts? You can look up who said that, and question his integrity all you want. You never met him, and obviously know almost nothing about him. You have the opportunity to make yourself really, really, angry.
Mike, IDK about that.
But many posters here, like you, have learned a tiny bit about a subject, and begin to think they know better than the experts.
DIY is the way to go anyway.
I recommend DIY appendectomies, DIY prostate surgery.
DIY rocket science: a Flat Earther recently tried that and removed himself from the gene pool.
Don’t forget DIY trolls and you, the King of Obfuscation.
N,
I know you don’t know, but you act like you do. What subject are you talking about? And you might name one or two of the experts. Of course you can’t, I know.
As to surgery, people may actually need a surgeon. Nobody has ever needed a climatologist. That is why alarmist idiots always talk about anything other than climatologists, when referring to expertise.
By the way, why do you refer to me as Mike? Is this some alarmist code signifying disconnection from reality? Keep it up.
Chic’s adopted the DREMT/Huffman tactic of giving their critics stupid nicknames.
Lets no forget that faux-skeptic Chic believes anyone who is skeptical of his unsupported beliefs, and points out the flaws in his ill-conceived objections to mainstream science, must be an obfuscator or a troll, while he lacks all skepticism for glaringly flawed contrarian ‘science’.
Quite similar to the sophists over at Sophistry who label anyone who points out the flaws in their logic a sophist before giving them the boot.
N,
For a person who says they don’t know, but then proceeds to act as though they do, you are not demonstrating a good grasp of logic. Would you take much notice of a surgeon who claims he doesn’t know much about surgery, but asks you to trust him anyway? Or a climatologist?
Keep obfuscating and trolling.
Mike, your reading comprehension skills are rather limited, and lets face it, your just here to troll.
N,
You are obfuscating and trolling again. Just more unsupported allegations. By the way, who is this Mike who seems to be Infecting deluded alarmist brains?
Your noise/signal ratio is Amazingly high, way beyond standard troll levels and everone else’s.
Just like Mike Flynn.
Snape, please stop trolling.
Mr Spencer
Where is your calculation for how much of a reduction you would EXPECT from the reduction in activity?
Let me start you off:
Air flights contribute about 2.5% of annual CO2 emissions.
A 28% reduction in air travel means a reduction of 0.7% of CO2 emissions.
This 0.7% of the average contribution of 0.4 ppm CO2 we make in a 2 month period, or 0.003 ppm.
How exactly do you expect to see that effect on this graph? Is your process of removing seasonality that precise?
But thanks for showing us all your oil/coal-based motivation for your resistance to climate science.
Someone feeling tiny bit bilious? Maybe feeling slightly impotent?
Not sure. I can’t see into your bile duct or gonads.
Indeed. And even if you could, you couldnt do anything anway. Impotence. Keep on trolling. It obviously satisfies some need you have.
To be fair, there is more than just airline activity that is down. Conflating Air Transport with all industrial and human CO2 emissions is disingenuous
The person being disingenuous is the one who ignored “Let me start you off”.
Des, please stop trolling.
We don’t need to see an effect in the temperature data. The whole premise is that CO2 is a magic knob that somehow mystically controls the climate through a series of postulated feedbacks.
If CO2 increase stalls, it will require quite some explanation if the whole edifice is not to collapse.
We are not looking for a response in the temperature data here. What is being tested is the hypothesis that the current economic slowdown will be noticeable in CO2 concentration data. CO2’s radiative force and effect on the temperature, which is based on the laws of physics, observations, and laboratory experiments as opposed to magic and mysticism, is actually irrelevant here.
I’m interested in hearing more about your CO2 increase stall talking point. What are your expectations for CO2 concentration growth for the next year? Are you expecting it to stall? What would a stall tell you if it were to happen?
The only thing magic and mystic is your CO2 forcing idiocy.
Suppliers of CO2 dont seem to list radiative force or effect on the temperature amongst the physical properties of their product. Nor do any engineering or physics or chemistry references.
Have you been reading a manual of magic by mistake?
SPA and MF,
You can get CO2’s radiative forcing effect from radiative transfer models like MODTRAN. You can also use the well known 5.35*ln(Ct/Cr) formula where Ct is the target concentration and Cr is the reference concentration. For example, 40 GtCO2 of emission relative to 410 ppm yields 5.35*ln((40 / 7.8 + 410) / 410) = +0.067 W/m^2 of forcing. See Myhre et al. 1998 for my reference on that calculation.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
One estimate shows a 4% reduction in carbon emissions for 2020. This unprecedented reduction amounts to only 1.6 GtCO2 or 0.2 ppm.
https://tinyurl.com/s9vee3r
This will be a severe attack of winter weather in the United States.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01002/spkvu5tp2jt9.png
How did your predictions of US winter weather turn out for you this year?
Des, please stop trolling.
It could give a better picture if you measured the amount of fossils burned. Has that changed so much during this pandemic?
I posted a link to an estimate above that suggests there will be a 4% reduction in human emissions in 2020 due to the economic slowdown.
It is as expected (by me that is).
The 10 Gt of carbon equivalent of CO2 that we humans emit every year are an insignificance compared to the total carbon equivalent present in the atmosphere and hydrosphere put together, which are in a constant equilibrium sharing CO2 at a rate of ~1:52 respectively, obeying Henry’s Law. The total carbon equivalent is circa 38,000 Gt. We are emitting just 0.027 Gt of carbon as CO2 every day into a reservoir containing 38,000 Gt. If that is not an insignificance then I don’t know what an insignificance is.
QED
10 GtC = 37 GtCO2 = 4.75 ppm
That’s how much we are putting into the atmosphere every year.
Too little, too much, or just right? Justify your answer.
You have to divide your 4.75 ppm by 53 (52 + 1 = 53) = 0.09 ppm
52 parts out of 53 parts of the CO2 that we emit is, to make it simple, absorbed by the hydrosphere.
MF,
The atomic mass of C is 12. The atomic mass of CO2 is 44. This is a ratio of about 1-to-3.7. And 1 ppm of CO2 is equivalent to about 7.8 GtCO2. It follows then that 10 GtC = 37 GtCO2 = 4.75 ppm. It is what it is.
You miss my point. How much CO2 should be in the atmosphere (ppm will do). Is an extra 4.75 ppm too much, too little, or just right? Justify your answer.
MF,
I definitely missed your point. I thought I was being asked to justify the 4.75 ppm/yr figure.
At any rate I don’t think there is a once-size-fits-all CO2 level for Earth. Although we could probably estimate a range of desirable levels for different scenarios. We just need to agree on what those scenarios are.
B,
I see you have been infected with the MF mind worm. No problem. If there is no agreed CO2 level, what is all the fuss about? What level do you advocate, or are you just obsessing on principle?
MF,
I don’t advocate for any CO2 level. I do, however, advocate for understanding the implications of different CO2 levels.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
And anyway, it is wrong to state that we emit 10 GtC every year. We don’t just dump 37 GtCo2 on new year’s day every year. We emit it continuously at a rate of 0.00000117GtCO2 per second while the hungry biosphere is gobbling it up happily, and it thrives on it. The CO2 that we emit is an insignificance. Try to remove your blinkers and you will see it. It’s so simple.
Watcher of the road,
You have to divide your 4.75 ppm by 53 (52 + 1 = 53) = 0.09 ppm
4.75 ppm/yr is the amount humans directly emit into the atmosphere. If I divided the number by 53 it would no longer be the amount humans directly emit into the atmosphere. It would not even be the fractional amount in the hydrosphere either.
About half of the 10 GtC/yr does eventually go into the hydrosphere after going through the atmosphere first. And carbon is about 38000 GtC in the hydrosphere. The fraction of the hydrosphere that is carbon is about 0.000027 ppm. So for the hydrosphere 1 GtC = 0.0000000007 ppm and 5 GtC/yr = 0.0000000035 ppm/yr.
Or if you want to know the fraction of human emissions relative to all carbon that participates in the carbon cycle then it would be 10 / 40000 = 0.025%. If you wanted to do this in ppm I guess it would be 250, but nobody really keeps track of that.
We emit it continuously at a rate of 0.00000117GtCO2 per second
37 GtCO2/yr = 0.00000117 GtCO2/s
The CO2 that we emit is an insignificance.
4.75 ppm/yr into the atmosphere is about 200% of the rate the level is increasing. That is the opposite of insignificant.
Ill make it really simple for you. What is the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere? If you dont really know, why are you trolling? I wont bother asking you to justify your answer. You dont have any scientifically based justification, do you? Just more witless alarmism.
I don’t think there is any one-size-fits-all level of CO2 that is optimal. However, if optimal means unchanging then about 5 GtC emissions is what is required to balance the atmospheric carbon budget. If optimal means returning to < 400 ppm then our emissions need to be < 5 GtC for at least some period of time. Some people define optimal as whatever maximizes humanity's standard of living all other things being equal. But I can honestly say I don't know what that level is exactly. But based on the research available it is probably < 420 ppm and almost certainly < 560 ppm. I am open to debate on these figures though if that's the definition of optimal we are going by.
And although that line of discussion is important it still does not change the fact that 10 GtC into the atmosphere is significant.
The optimal level of CO2 800-1200 ppm , so now you know
If you don’t know what an optimal level is, and you don’t even know what the word optimal means, why would anyone debate with you? What good would it do? You seem to be obsessed with CO2, but you can’t actually say why.
You have now admitted to the fact that a good part of anthropogenic CO2, in one way or another, ends up in the hydrosphere, and that’s the reason for the ‘oceans acidification’ meme, except that the oceans can never become acidic in the true chemical sense of the word.
But ‘About half of the 10 GtC/yr does eventually go into the hydrosphere’ is not good enough. The ratio is 1:52, that is, about 98% of anthropogenic CO2 eventually forces the atmosphere/hydrosphere interaction to rebalance the equation, so to speak, in accordance to Henry’s law. Of course ocean temperature plays a great part in this dynamic. It’s complicated, but there are no mysteries.
“CO2 eventually forces the atmosphere/hydrosphere interaction to rebalance the equation, so to speak, in accordance to Henry’s law.”
In what period of time? How long does it take for atmosphere and deep ocean to rebalance, Watcher?
Yes. The biosphere and hydrosphere buffer about 50% of the excess carbon in the atmosphere. This is why the CO2 level is increasing by 2.5 ppm/yr instead of 5.0 ppm/yr.
Yes. The uptake of carbon by the ocean is complicated. Henry’s Law only partially describes the process. Like you say…it is not a mystery.
That does not change the fact that 10 GtC/yr into the atmosphere is the opposite of insignificant.
Replying to Nate, your interesting question “How long does it take for atmosphere and deep ocean to rebalance, Watcher?”
I don’t know. But for sure it must be a continuous process, keeping the equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans, with ocean temperature being thrown in the equation together with the anthropogenic component, 0.0011 GtC per hour in a normal, non Covid-19 world.
However it is a known fact that past CO2 increase lagged oceanic temperature rises by 700 years.
Watcher said: However it is a known fact that past CO2 increase lagged oceanic temperature rises by 700 years.
Yes. This is correct (mostly anyway) for the Quaternary Period. The reason is because CO2 was playing its role as a feedback agent first and then a forcing agent second. Something else was catalyzing the initial temperature change which resulted in the release of CO2. But that release then forces the temperature higher and so on.
But, this isn’t always the case. The PETM and other ETMx eras were characterized by CO2 leading the temperature change. This is because a non-temperature related catalyst caused the release of CO2 which then forced the temperature higher. CO2 played the role as a forcing agent first and a feedback agent second during these eras.
Same with the modern era. CO2’s release is modulated by human behavior not by temperature changes. This is why CO2 is leading the temperature change today. Even if we reduced human emissions to 0 GtC the temperature would still rise for a couple of decades because a +0.6 W/m^2 energy imbalanced has materialized due to CO2 radiative forcing even despite the negative radiative forcing of anthroprogenic and natural aerosol increases.
It is important to understand that CO2 participates in the climate system as being in both a feedback and forcing relationship with the temperature. This means it can lead or lag the temperature depending upon the exact nature how both temperature and CO2 are being modulated.
“Yes. The biosphere and hydrosphere buffer about 50% of the excess carbon in the atmosphere. This is why the CO2 level is increasing by 2.5 ppm/yr instead of 5.0 ppm/yr.”
No. No. No. The biosphere and hydrosphere sequester about 1/4 to 1/3 of the CO2 emissions each year, a little less than each year’s emissions regardless of source. That is why the level is increasing at 2.5 ppm/year.
“Same with the modern era. CO2s release is modulated by human behavior not by temperature changes. This is why CO2 is leading the temperature change today.”
That paleoclimate stuff is total speculation on your part. Let’s stick to the data we can measure in a realistic time frame and assertions you can prove. CO2 can not be shown to be leading temperature change with any data other than a rough correlation. Why not say the US national debt caused the temperature change?
“Even if we reduced human emissions to 0 GtC the temperature would still rise for a couple of decades because a +0.6 W/m^2 energy imbalanced has materialized due to CO2 radiative forcing even despite the negative radiative forcing of anthropogenic and natural aerosol increases.”
Are you basing this on the continued presence of CO2 remaining in the air for a long time? If so, you are just guessing that the non-physical models of the IPCC and Dr. Spencer are correct. The error bars on your 0.6 W/m^2 include zero. Any imbalance could be due to more insolation, not less IR radiation out.
No. No. No. The biosphere and hydrosphere sequester about 1/4 to 1/3 of the CO2 emissions each year, a little less than each years emissions regardless of source. That is why the level is increasing at 2.5 ppm/year.
We can certainly debate the exact values here. I don’t have a problem with that. Where I’m coming from is that 40 GtCO2 = 5 ppm/yr is going into the atmosphere yet only 2.5 ppm/yr accumulates.
If only 1/4 to 1/3 of the 5 ppm/yr emissions get sequestered then where does the other 1.25 to 1.65 ppm/yr go?
That paleoclimate stuff is total speculation on your part.
The more observations and experiments you ignore the easier it is to justify inferior models. I have no problem with being critical of paleoclimate data or any data for that matter. That’s why you run models against the uncertainty envelop. If your model doesn’t land inside the uncertainty envelope then you need to rethink your model. Besides, larger observational uncertainty envelopes should make it easier for your model to match; not harder.
Are you basing this on the continued presence of CO2 remaining in the air for a long time?
Yes. Sort of. The Earth energy imbalance tends toward 0.0 W/m^2 by the T^4 relationship with outgoing longwave radiation. This equilibriation process takes about 20-30 years. Obviously CO2 levels will drop some in this time period which also acts to reduce the imbalance.
If so, you are just guessing that the non-physical models of the IPCC and Dr. Spencer are correct.
Yes. It assumes the model is correct. Any prediction using any model of reality makes this assumption. Is any model truly physical? Aren’t they all just proxies for reality?
The error bars on your 0.6 W/m^2 include zero.
The error is about 0.1 W/m^2 on that figure. Refer to the OHC data provided by Cheng 2020.
Any imbalance could be due to more insolation, not less IR radiation out.
Could be. But you’d need to provide evidence of the increased insolation and evidence showing that 150+ years of GHG science was all a mirage to be convincing.
bdgwx,
Sorry, I was reacting to your use of the word buffer instead of sequester/sink/absorb, etc. The amount sequestered is a fraction of the whole CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, not just the emissions.. So the proportion of FF emissions contributing to the 2.5 ppm/year increase is 0.125 ppm/year assuming the FF content of the air is 5%. That will gradually increase from year to year.
“Is any model truly physical? Arent they all just proxies for reality?”
Do you know what a first order kinetic model is? A zero order model? There are physical processes that obey those types of models. The goal is to find the right model to fit the physical reality. Dr. Spencer’s model fits the data, but is wrong because it doesn’t describe the physical
process correctly. The IPCC models neither fit the data or describe the processes correctly.
“But youd need to provide evidence of the increased insolation…
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
“…and evidence showing that 150+ years of GHG science was all a mirage to be convincing.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/how-the-ceres-ebaf-ed4-data-disconfirms-agw-in-3-different-ways/
Chic,
You’re never going to get BGDWX off of these talking points:
1) CO2 “pulse.”
2) Exactly 50% of the anthropogenic CO2 has a force field around it that prevents it from being absorbed and allows it to last hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
3) That all the Earth’s warming is due to CO2 “radiative forcing” which somehow doesn’t cause more CO2 to be emitted.
4) All his useless models that never predict anything but will adamantly point out how your “models” are not useful in prediction.
Stephen,
I agree he is pretty well entrenched.
This is one of the first CO2 maps generated from the OCO-2 satellite. What hits one in the face is that the higher CO2 levels (yellow) are in the tropics, with a good part of that being over the oceans, AND the high-level CO2 patches (red) are over the tropical forests, except for the one over China, which is, in my estimation, understandable. https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/media/gallery/browse/1stmap.jpeg
..and which is highly indicative that CO2 is bubbling out of the oceans as a result of being saturated of it as a result of marine volcanic activity.
Yes. CO2 does outgas from the ocean. But it also gets taken up by the ocean in gaseous form and as dissociated organic compounds. It is the net flow of carbon that we are most interest in. And right now the net flow is into the ocean at a rate of about 5 GtC/yr. This is why the global mean pH of the ocean is decreasing. In other words carbon mass is being transferred from the atmosphere into the hydrosphere. The biosphere takes up some of the excess atmospheric carbon as well.
Also note that your imagine is from Oct-01 to Nov-11. The carbon cycle has seasonal fluctuations. The imagine is at a time when the SH growing season is in its most quiescent state. An image for the period 6 months would show quite a bit different distribution of CO2. Also note that CO2 is a well mixed gas so it’s spatial variation is pretty small. The range on that image is about 15 ppm with most of the surface in hovering closer to 395 ppm and deviating by only a few ppm.
bdgwx says: ”It is the net flow of carbon that we are most interest in. And right now the net flow is into the ocean at a rate of about 5 GtC/yr. This is why the global mean pH of the ocean is decreasing. ”
Nobody knows what the global mean pH of the ocean is. The estimate that it is decreasing is based upon an assumption that prior to human emissions that global carbon was in an equilibrium state. If the system was in a state of near equilibrium or was carbon poor then pH would be decreasing. If the ocean was carbon rich, which would be the case if the system was undergoing warming after an equilibrium point was passed. . . .like after a glacial period or perhaps a significant stadial (LIA was a stadial).
Nobody knows what the global mean pH of the ocean is.
Many people know what it is. It is 8.05 and the trend is -0.02/decade. Now you know as well. My source is ARGO by the way.
The estimate that it is decreasing is based upon an assumption that prior to human emissions that global carbon was in an equilibrium state.
No. It is not. It is based on the fact that when you subtract two numbers and get a negative number it means the trend is in decline.
It is 8.05 and the trend is -0.02/decade. Now you know as well. My source is ARGO by the way.
ARGO has some data but ARGO samples less than half the ocean with sampling tailing off at depth. Thus you can’t claim ARGO as a source but you could reference a study that fills in the voids if one exists. I would be interested in reading it.
bill,
When you say no one knows the pH of the ocean do you really think the value could be anything between 0 and 14? Do you really think randomly guessing a value is as good as actual measurements?
And yes…the global mean pH is 8.05. Everyone accepts that value (or some value very close to it anyway). It’s not controversial.
bdgwx says: ”When you say no one knows the pH of the ocean do you really think the value could be anything between 0 and 14? Do you really think randomly guessing a value is as good as actual measurements?
And yesthe global mean pH is 8.05. Everyone accepts that value (or some value very close to it anyway). Its not controversial.”
Of course I am not saying that. What I am saying is we don’t know it well enough to accurately predict what changes we will see in a hundred years given an amount of human emissions.
The reasons for that are numerous. First, ocean pH is going to naturally fluctuate and we have no idea what that is in terms of what our expectations are the next hundred years from various scenarios of human emissions.
Second, ocean pH is very difficult to estimate to the changes pH over the past 30 years which is the length of time some degree of sampling has been occurring.
30 years is also the approximate length of ocean oscillation phases which appear to run in time with temperature oscillations. There are a lot of things that don’t line up with the politically popular viewpoint. Some I just listed in a reply to Nate tonight. I have been studying this for almost a decade and a half and repeatedly find a lot of disagreement between scientific viewpoints with politics aligning select science right down the political line, primarily by those that want to elevate the concern. Though there is a good deal of that sort of behavior on both sides. . . .keeping in mind government ministers despite party are largely motivated towards empire building as are almost all human beings. . . .whether you work for the government, an institution, a business, or even as a wage earner.
Just about the scariest thing one can hear is: “we are from the government and we are here to help you.”
The only thing that might begin to convince me that isn’t the biggest risk is convincing me its just my imagination that this is actually a very cold world where its inhabitants cluster around the equator far more than they do at the poles.
‘ I have been studying this for almost a decade and a half and repeatedly find a lot of disagreement between scientific viewpoints with politics aligning select science right down the political line’
Bill its quite clear that your that your opinions are often il-informed by the facts, but over-informed by ideology.
Stick to the science facts if you want your opinions on science to have credibility.
bill,
IPCC ARG WGI Ch. 3 table 3.2 lists 10 different sources that say the trend is -0.02 pH/decade with an error of 0.002 pH/decade.
If you think the error is higher than 0.002 pH/decade then you should provide sources with measurements with a much higher margin of error. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for an equivalent number of them. We’ll then average your 10 sources and the IPCC’s 10 sources to arrive at a mutually agreeable margin of error. We’ll then use the margin of error to compute the probability that ocean pH is not declining. Fair enough?
bdgwx says: ”IPCC ARG WGI Ch. 3 table 3.2 lists 10 different sources that say the trend is -0.02 pH/decade with an error of 0.002 pH/decade.”
Hmmmmmmmmmm? bdgwx which source did you find the most convincing or is it just a case you were impressed with 10 sources?
Nate says: ”Bill its quite clear that your that your opinions are often il-informed by the facts, but over-informed by ideology.
Stick to the science facts if you want your opinions on science to have credibility.”
Nate a professional skeptic doesn’t satisfy his skepticism by going on a wild goose chase. What they do is ask for evidence from people who claim to know.
What you are saying to me is you don’t know so look elsewhere.
bill said: which source did you find the most convincing
I don’t play the cherry picking game. As long as there are no significant methological flaws I consider all lines of evidence equally.
And yes I would apply the same rule to your 10 sources. I would give them equal weighting…again…as long as those lines of evidence have been vetted for methodological mistakes.
This is what being skeptical means. You consider all lines of evidence in totality. You don’t cherry pick your favorites.
bdgwx says: ”This is what being skeptical means. You consider all lines of evidence in totality. You dont cherry pick your favorites.”
Of course bdgwx. But if you had done that you would have a favorite one on the basis of the strength of the evidence presented. Obviously you didn’t do that and cherry picked the IPCC report itself. . . .which isn’t a study at all.
and oh IPCC ARG WGI Ch. 3 table 3.2 isn’t a legitimate reference in the first place.
bill said: Obviously you didn’t do that and cherry picked the IPCC report itself. . . .which isn’t a study at all.
You’re right. IPCC AR5 WGI isn’t really a study itself. It is a collation of studies…9200 of them containing 2 million gigabytes of data collated by 600 authors and reviewed by 1089 experts from all over the world who accepted over 54,000 comments during the review process.
bill said: and oh IPCC ARG WGI Ch. 3 table 3.2 isn’t a legitimate reference in the first place.
I can’t imagine why. The bibliography for all content including the figures and tables is included on pages 302-310.
Again…I’m open to including 10 of your own ocean datasets which publish a global mean pH trend.
Bill,
If the pH of the ocean is dropping which I agree with you there is not enough data. But, BGDWX believes that if the pH is dropping then that can only indicate that the CO2 is net flowing into the ocean. There is no other explanation.
Stephen Paul Anderson says: ”If the pH of the ocean is dropping which I agree with you there is not enough data. But, BGDWX believes that if the pH is dropping then that can only indicate that the CO2 is net flowing into the ocean. There is no other explanation.”
I think thats a very good question. I tried to give bdgwx an answer on that and perhaps I wasn’t explicit enough.
1) there is no doubt that a lot of anthropogenic emissions are ending up in the ocean.
2) the point regarding being a net absorber of CO2 vs net emitter has to be viewed within the carbon cycle in its entirety.
3) my point from the standpoint of Henry’s law is that if the ocean is warming its a net emitter of CO2 and contributes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
4) I asked bdgwx to accept that net absorber must mean absorbed and still there and balancing Henry’s law.
5) Science is working on but making slow progress in actually determining how all this works but there are reservoir sinks that are not directly controlled by Henry’s law. Carbon is lost to the ocean by a warming ocean, by mineralization of carbon, and by photosynthesis, and by chemosynthesis. these losses have the effect of a permanent loss of absorbed CO2
6) the distribution of dissolved carbon in the ocean is uneven and its mixing determined by ocean overturning rates.
To begin to comprehend it you need to know at current ocean temperature profiles about 95% of the ocean is carbon saturated in regards to pre-industrial CO2 levels and ocean mixing rates. So a lot of the action is occurring in the top 5% where photosynthsis operates depleting CO2 in the water as it creates life.
So the only point I was making is that these of these permanent losses of CO2 represents a permanent loss of carbon for the carbon cycle and for life on the planet as the ocean bottoms are carpeted with the fossils, bones, scales, and shells of dead animals (except they also have a cycle that takes eons unless of course God employs man to dig them up and reinvigorate life on earth)
One can certainly choose to consider the ocean a carbon sink but you miss a lot of nuance if you do that and you miss some potentially really important stuff. NOAA isn’t continuing research in this area because its unimportant.
Bill,
In general, that’s a good summary.
But I think it’s a fool’s errand to deny that ocean pH is going down to some extent. There will neverbe enough data to know exactly what the pH is at every point in the oceans. But there IS enough data to know that the concentration of total carbon in the oceans has gone up and is mostly in the form of the bicarbonate ion. Both hydrogen and carbonate ions also increase under that scenario. However, the carbonate ions are largely saturated and therefore some of the ocean carbon precipitates out (minerilization as you put it).
Also on the subject of net emitter/absorber, it is important to consider the frame of reference. If there was no excess carbon introduced to the air by fossil fuel emissions, then as temperature rises the oceans would outgas more than they absorb and one could argue for oceans being a net emitter. OTOH, by including the fossil fuel emissions with other emissions as total emissions, the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting thus making the oceans a net absorber.
On the whole, there are more emissions than absorp_tions, otherwise atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t be increasing.
Chic Bowdrie says: – Bill, In general, that’s a good summary.
But I think it’s a fool’s errand to deny that ocean pH is going down to some extent. There will neverbe enough data to know exactly what the pH is at every point in the oceans. But there IS enough data to know that the concentration of total carbon in the oceans has gone up and is mostly in the form of the bicarbonate ion. Both hydrogen and carbonate ions also increase under that scenario. However, the carbonate ions are largely saturated and therefore some of the ocean carbon precipitates out (minerilization as you put it).
——————-
——————-
——————-
I agree with everything you say. Clearly carbon enrichment in the ocean is going to have some effects. Where everything gets bungled up is in predicting where its headed. After decades of analyzing model outputs and near straight line projections off of short term observations I remain highly skeptical of what anyone believes is going to happen in the next phase of this minor stimuli in our truly amazing and complex world. It is unfortunate that environmentalism has become a victim of its own success and gone from solving obvious problems to trying to solve imaginary problems.
—————–
Chic says: Also on the subject of net emitter/absorber, it is important to consider the frame of reference. If there was no excess carbon introduced to the air by fossil fuel emissions, then as temperature rises the oceans would outgas more than they absorb and one could argue for oceans being a net emitter. OTOH, by including the fossil fuel emissions with other emissions as total emissions, the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting thus making the oceans a net absorber.
———————-
———————-
———————-
That also is true but within it is hidden a good deal of complexity that is important if it is treated that way.
another point is that the production of bicarbonates doesn’t stop there. In fact it was the consumption of bicarbonates by alkalihalophilic cyanobacteria is what is believed to have produced the oxygen in our atmosphere and made this planet livable for humans. . . .potentially mitigating several concerns regarding human emissions. As a result alkalihalophilic cyanobacteria is currently front and center in discussions of human interventions. But it may be the case all we need to do is watch. Bottom line as we have seen innumerable times in this multi-decadal debate where concerns about excessive CO2 in the atmosphere rests much on dodgy proxies, many of which have already come and gone, we have really only seen positive effects arise so far. Such as greater agricultural output with less water required probably being the number one benefit.
Chic,
Here is data that you asked for earlier. See table 2.
http://www.ioccp.org/images/03TimeSeries/BatesN14.pdf
It confirms the modeling that the trend in total carbon content DIC in the surface ocean are much lower, as a percentage, than the trend in either atm pCO2 or ocean surface pCO2, as a percentage.
In table 2, you see that total DIC trend is ~ 1 micromol/Kg/year out of a total 2200 micromol/kg. This is about 5% increase over a century.
In contrast to the current trend in pco2 ~ 50% per century.
This is the Revelle Factor at work.
Again, the Berry principle that the increase in flow of carbon from the surface ocean to deep ocean is proportional to the pressure increase.
If that increase has been small ~ 5%. Then the flow of carbon to the deep ocean has increased by 5%.
Clearly this explains why the ocean is unable to sink the excess atm CO2 quickly.
About my statement’Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries.’
Chic had this to say: “He cannot back that up with any firm data”
Now that I give him just that, we get silence from Chic.
Again facts dont really matter and can be ignored when youve got belief.
You’ve shown nothing to indicate you can explain how the Bates paper refutes Berry and Salby models. Unlike you I don’y accept raising the Revelle factor meme as proof of anything. Unlike you I don’t accept the conclusions of the paper before I’ve investigated the methods and the data. For these reasons and the restraints of more important commitments, I am not going to answer at this time.
I won’t be answering you anyway, because I’ll get nothing but more obfuscation. No more pearls before swine for you.
Nate says:
April 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM
About my statementThus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries.
Chic had this to say: He cannot back that up with any firm data
Now that I give him just that, we get silence from Chic.
Again facts dont really matter and can be ignored when youve got belief.
———————————–
I may have missed the firm data. But all I have seen established is that ocean overturning doesn’t necessarily need to be at a high rate. We know it has to keep the ocean bottom cold but we don’t know specifically how it does it. A minimum rate would be a rate of flow and a temperature differential of that flow. High flow would only require a slight temperature differential. A slow flow would require a higher temperature differential. And actually those are only minimums because the maximum is determined via an equilibrium with surface warming from the sun and perhaps the atmosphere.
That leaves a lot of space in between.
bdgwx says: Youre right. IPCC AR5 WGI isnt really a study itself. It is a collation of studies9200 of them containing 2 million gigabytes of data collated by 600 authors and reviewed by 1089 experts from all over the world who accepted over 54,000 comments during the review process.
————————
I have been involved in such processes. How many of the 54,000 comments were actually resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter?
How many of the 54,000 comments were actually resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter?
Good question. I don’t know. I can tell you that it was < 100%.
And that raises another question. Do you require 100% satisfaction and 100% perfection of scientific models before you are convinced enough with them that you would use them to make decisions?
bdgwx says:
April 22, 2020 at 2:51 PM
How many of the 54,000 comments were actually resolved to the satisfaction of the commenter?
Good question. I dont know. I can tell you that it was < 100%.
And that raises another question. Do you require 100% satisfaction and 100% perfection of scientific models before you are convinced enough with them that you would use them to make decisions?
———————–
LOL! IPCC authors are politically appointed and they in turn select reviewers based upon the authors perspective of their expertise. All comments should be resolved to the commenters satisfaction or disclosed as an exception to the process. . . .that is if you want to call it a consensus to give it some shade of science that is settled by thousands of scientists.
This is just an exercise in honesty.
Since all comments are qualified based upon expertise the political process is obligated to inform the public of what is agreed upon and what is not.
I spend a good deal of time in processes making sure that everybody's qualified opinion becomes part of the decision making. Its just bizarre beyond bizarre to me that anybody with ethics would want it any other way. We do a lot of stuff based upon agreed upon science that nobody particularly likes. If science can't settle the matter then do we really want to look to bureaucrats, aristocrats, elites, and the powerful to make the decision for us undemocratically and without accountability?
The IPCC reports are particularly bad with political editing occurring to the reports purported to be scientific in nature. thats kind of business as usual for most of the world and thats why its that way in UN efforts.
In this country its been that way in the past but its gradually changing toward more transparency because of public demand. One guy can make a big difference. All he needs is a bright flashlight to shine into some of the remaining dark corners and scatter the rats and cockroaches.
So no you don't need 100% agreement on mitigation measures. But you do need at least 50%. And if you want to call it science you need 100% agreement of the qualified scientists to call it science for the purposes of influencing the political majority are you are immoral.
Obviously this is a political forum on the basis of its participants. But one does not need to look far at all to find qualified scientists that disagree with the opinions of the politicians in here. And that works for both sides. The conclusion is simple. The necessity of climate change mitigation has not been determined by science, making it by default and morality entirely a democratic decision, hopefully by a majority of the population that actually respects the freedom of others realizing that respect is an absolute necessity for keeping their own freedom. That means everybody's opinion counts.
“Youve shown nothing to indicate you can explain how the Bates paper refutes Berry and Salby models.”
I show you direct evidence that the concentration of carbon in the mixed layer is growing much slower than the atmospheres carbon concentration.
I have clearly explained why the removal of carbon from the mixed layer to the deep ocean, driven by this very slowly growing imbalance with the deep ocean must therefore be very slow. This is well understood science, not my idea.
So you cannot refute this evidence or explain it away, so you just dismiss it outright. Very professsional..
“Unlike you I dont accept raising the Revelle factor meme as proof of anything.”
Why? It directly affects the time scale for removal of carbon from the atmosphere. What is your reason for dismissing it?
“Unlike you I dont accept the conclusions of the paper before Ive investigated the methods and the data.”
Ok, so dont bother reading it, since it disagrees with your beliefs anyway.
“For these reasons and the restraints of more important commitments, I am not going to answer at this time.”
Ok so we’ve been discussing this issue for months. The paper I bring up directly addresses issues that you have raised many times, but suddenly you dont have time?
You have clearly explained nothing. There is no solid data to support the claims you are regurgitating from the Bates paper. Here is one example, “At the same time, the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere has declined, as evidenced by the ubiquitous increases in Revelle factor values.” Where has it been proven that an increase in the Revelle factor reduces the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2? One of your own sources agrees:
Of the oceanatmosphereland three-component system, ocean contains by far the most natural carbon. There is no realizable physical limit to the uptake capacity of the ocean and it is estimated that on millennial timescales the ocean will ultimately store up to 90% of the CO2 released by human activity. However, on timescales more relevant to human society, the uptake rate of CO2 is controlled by a complicated matrix of physical, chemical and biological processes. Studies suggest that the ocean has been the primary sink for excess CO2 released to the atmosphere over the last 200 years, but the ocean’s role may be changing over the next few decades to centuries.
Because the anthropogenic signal in the ocean is relatively small compared to the natural background concentrations and relative to the observed seasonal to interannual variations, it has been difficult to directly quantify the uptake and storage of anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean. This has been further hampered by a paucity of data. The current estimates have been based primarily on indirect approaches or on a number of simplified assumptions, ignoring a number of potential carbon cycle and carbonclimate feedbacks. The potential role of these feedback processes in the ocean carbon cycle is just beginning to be understood and fully appreciated. As we obtain more data on processes and improve their representation in models, we will be better equipped to estimate the long-term role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle and its impact on future climate change.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/conclusions.shtml
You will find similar language in the conclusions of the Bates paper.
Yep Nates beliefs are clearly less than half baked.
He argues that carbon in the mixed layer is very low and that mixing with the bottom layer is very slow and presumes from the amount of carbon in the mixed layer that there is a very small imbalance between the surface and the deep ocean.
Wrong!
1. The imbalance between the surface ocean and the deep ocean is large not small.
2. The deep ocean is carbon rich and the surface ocean is carbon poor due to biological processes.
3. Mixing with the deep ocean almost certainly occurs at high latitudes. Here the water is cold and it will absorb a lot more carbon before sinking and mixing with the deep ocean. The carbon richness of the polar oceans are enhanced when sunlight is absent because of the lack of photosynthesis during that portion of the year. However this carbon rich area of the surface ocean is only a small part of the ocean, thus as a mean there is a large imbalance between the surface and deep ocean.
4. Deposition of carbon on the ocean bottom occurs primarily from the surface ocean. It is dead biological materials. The lower ocean doesn’t have much life in it because of the lack of light.
5. Bacterial decomposition at the bottom and at all levels of the ocean provide a recycling of nutrients. Cold upwelling areas in the ocean are extremely carbon and nutrient rich and thus are often marked by algae blooms, abundance of forage fishes, and predator fish.
All this provides an incredibly complex web of the recycling and bottom deposition of carbon and nutrients in the ocean.
One cannot just assume because you believe the mixing rate to be very slow that you know what is going on in the surface ocean.
Fact is we know more about the surface of Mars than we know about the bottom of our oceans.
Watcher could you explain why the CO2 is higher over the tropical rain forests. I am led to believe they are big carbon sinks. Surely they ought to be lower.
I can only interpret, as a layman, the satellite graphic according to my limited ability, namely, why is it that CO2 sources are stronger over the tropical oceans areas and more so over tropical rain forests:
1. Oceans are releasing CO2 as a consequence of marine volcanic activity, however, cold oceans lose less CO2 than warm oceans, and this is obvious and confirmed by NASA’s OCO-2 satellite.
2. Old forests are not carbon sinks but carbon emitters due to death foliage and other dead biological stuff releasing CO2 during its biological decomposition.
What amazes me is that the graphic that I have posted is the first OCO-2 image that was published by NASA, the first and the last in such a self explanatory format. later images are just meant to obfuscate the truth, in my opinion. In fact I cannot locate it again in the OCO-2 section of Nasa’s website:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco2/index.html
But there’s a link to it in some server somewhere: here it is:
https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/media/gallery/browse/1stmap.jpeg
I highly recommend that you save this image.
The OCO-2 data can be downloaded here.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/#mission=OCO-2
I recommend the LITE download as opposed to FULL. LITE contains the most useful parameters and is in the more friendly and widely used netcdf format. You just need a netcdf viewer of which there are countless available for free.
Dr. Roy Spencer
You had an earlier post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/covid-19-deaths-in-europe-excess-mortality-is-down/
This was my reply to your post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/covid-19-deaths-in-europe-excess-mortality-is-down/#comment-452766
Basically wait and see, I think your post was a little early.
Maybe do another post with more current data:
https://www.euromomo.eu/
Now you can see a drastic spike from Covid-19 and it is still growing. Not reached a peak yet. In some of the worst hit Nations it is the highest peak. Even though the death rate is going down in Italy and Spain (slowly) it is rising in many other European Nations.
We will see what happens with Sweden and Belarus in the coming weeks with very little lockdown or social distancing in place.
Keep watching. Time will tell. Again wait and see.
There you go..
Hi Norman
Here’s the Swedish approach explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY
Continued from here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-458454
bdgwx,
First let me clarify why Salby’s model doesn’t have a pure emissions term. The y*T component embodies the thermal influence on total emissions of which anthropogenic are only a small fraction. His whole approach was an attempt to distill the anthropogenic component out of the total CO2 growth curve. So yes, his model ignores the human component and his data validates that assump_tion. Chaamjamal’s data justifies that as well.
You are the one confused about retention time and adjustment time. Don’t pin that on Salby or me or anybody else.
“And that he provides no accounting for actual source and sink fluxes. Theyre just assumed based on temperature correlation and molecular exchange rates respectively.”
That’s what a model does. Salby proposed that the thermal component was the major influence on CO2 and his theoretical cross-correlation was a match to the data when the residence time was 5 years.
“It doesnt matter if [r] drives [T] or [T] drives [r] in this model. The match will be there regardless.”
I don’t think so. Have you done a similar correlation of r driving [T]?
“And his model provides no underlying reason why [T] drives [r] instead of the other way around.”
Not true. Go back and listen to Salby’s presentation again. The CO2 lags behind the temperature. If you think otherwise, make that case.
“And he rationalizes…he estimates…..”
Those numbers result from his method of back integrating. The farther back you go, the worse the error is. He only uses the instrumental data, not the proxies. I notice how easy it is for you to criticize Salby’s data-centered work and swallow lock, stock, and barrel the IPCC models that haven’t been experimentally verified.
And Chic is pushing correlation with no clear causation as evidence of something?
Chic said: You are the one confused about retention time and adjustment time. Dont pin that on Salby or me or anybody else.
Seriously? After the countless posts of me defining the concepts and trying to explain them I’m now the one that is confused?
Salby literally says the C14 bomb spike decay curve models CO2 absor.p.tion. Absor.p.tion is an adjustment time concept because it involves permanent removal of mass. The C14 bomb spike is residence time concept because it involves exchanges of mass (not removals). Salby is 100% conflating the ideas of RT and AT. It is right there in the video.
Chic said: Not true. Go back and listen to Salbys presentation again. The CO2 lags behind the temperature. If you think otherwise, make that case.
Yep. That’s the way his model works. That doesn’t mean it is right. And notice the claimed lag…only 10 months. See if you can get the model to work during the 1998-2012 pause period.
Chic said: He only uses the instrumental data, not the proxies. I notice how easy it is for you to criticize Salbys data-centered work and swallow lock, stock, and barrel the IPCC models that havent been experimentally verified.
The IPCC does not create or maintain models. They only collate and summarize the already available scientific work on the matter. The consensus model of the carbon cycle is far better than what Salby offers. Remember…Salby’s model can’t even make predictions so it is completely useless to the IPCC who is specifically chartered to make predictions concerning what-if scenarios. And BTW…if a model cannot make predictions of the future is it even a model? I mean that is one of the fundamental tenants of a scientific model/theory. It must make predictions of the future that are testable.
“Absor.p.tion is an adjustment time concept because it involves permanent removal of mass.”
This illustrates why you are either confused or purposefully obfuscating. Absorp_tion is simply half of the process of exchange that involves both give and take. Absorp_tion and emission. The absorp_tion in Salby’s model is governed by [r] the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The emission is allegedly governed by temperature. There is no conflation of RT/AT by Salby. You are the one introducing the confusion.
“The IPCC does not create or maintain models.”
Pure obfuscation that. I wasn’t claiming IPCC makes models. With all our discussions preceding this, I thought you would understand I was referring to models published in IPCC reports primarily the Bern model. You have indicated no appreciation of the value of Salby’s model nor provided any evidence of the superiority of any IPCC model for predicting the future concentrations of CO2 in the air.
Yes, a model that can’t proactively predict the future can still be a valid model for demonstrating the validity of physical processes. However, if a model is based on an independent variable whose future is unknown, you have to wait until the data is available to know whether the model was any good. That is why the IPCC temperature models aren’t worse than they are. It’s because the alleged dependent temperature variable has been trending up while the alleged independent CO2 variable rises. There is no confirmation that this is not a coincidence. If temperature drops while CO2 rises, it’s back to the drawing board for climate modelers.
Chic,
It is quite clear that when Salby uses the word absor.p.tion he is referring to permanent removal of mass. That means a reservoir must be a net absorber if it is going to receive that mass assuming no other transfers in/out are taking place.
Yes. Salby is definitely conflating RT and AT. We know this because he uses the C14 bomb spike decay to draw conclusions about permanent removal rates.
Remember this simple fact. Consider a hypothetical Earth that has 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and which has 100 ppm/yr of both sources and sinks fluxes. The ppm of that atmosphere remains 400 ppm indefinitely. It does not change…ever. The mass never gets removed because the source and sink fluxes are balanced. Now pulse 1 ppm of C14 into the atmosphere (which is orders of magnitude higher than the real bomb pulse). Will the C14 ratio ratio deplete with an e-time of 4 years? Yep. Will it look like the curve Salby shows? Yep. Now how long does it take for that 1 ppm to deplete? Answer…never! That’s right…the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere does not change…like…at all! Do you understand that concept for our trivial hypothetical Earth? If so we can move on closer to explaining what happens on the real Earth. If you still don’t understand this concept then we can’t proceed yet.
Fair enough on a model still being a model and useful even though it can’t predictions about the future. I agree…they are still useful. Besides Salby’s model technically could predict the future if it were extended to prognosticate temperature as well. I’ll definitely and happily concede this point.
Well that is annoying. My bold tags got mixed up so now the bold font is all over the place. This forum is frustrating to use if nothing else.
Where does Salby make it clear that absorp_tion means permanent removal of mass? Net absorp_tion does not mean permanent removal. A molecule doesn’t get its passport removed after being sinked. Most molecules probably don’t return, but no matter. The point is molecules are absorbed and other molecules are emitted. The net is a small fraction of the total exchanged. Look at the graph at 8:14 minute:seconds of the video to see for yourself.
“Now how long does it take for that 1 ppm to deplete? Answer…never!?
That’s wrong. The 1 ppm pulse will be back to baseline in less than 5 e-folding times if nothing else changes in your hypothetical atmosphere. I understand the concept. Why don’t you? [You don’t have to yell]
Thats wrong. The 1 ppm pulse will be back to baseline in less than 5 e-folding times if nothing else changes in your hypothetical atmosphere. I understand the concept. Why dont you? [You dont have to yell]
How do you suppose 1 ppm will be removed if sources and sinks are both 100 ppm/yr? Remember…100 ppm/yr – 100 ppm/yr = 0 ppm/yr.
Your question is very revealing. How best to answer? I will try two ways.
First, I should have qualified “if nothing else changes in your hypothetical atmosphere.” Of course a pulse will upset the balance and no longer will you have 100 ppm/yr in, 100 ppm/year out. You will still have 100 ppm/yr in, but the out will increase due to the imbalance. In 20 years (5 e-times), the 1 ppm is indistinguishably close to baseline.
Here is a model to demonstrate: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ocviq6hez7y026/1ppm%20pulse.xlsx?dl=0
The pulse was added in year 52 just after the 400 ppm level was established to 4 decimal place error. In year 87 (35 years later), the baseline is back to 400 ppm to 4 decimal places. You are correct about the whole 1 ppm pulse never completely disappearing. It’s only a question of how many decimal places and if your detection method is sensitive enough to measure any difference from baseline.
Try making the pulse 10 ppm. Notice that the time to get the baseline back to 400 with 4 decimal place accuracy is now year 95 (43 years after the pulse).
Your definition of adjustment time is “The amount of time a unit of mass remains in the atmosphere before it is permanently removed.”
How useful is that if, technically and hypothetically, no pulse can ever be permanently removed?
Yes. In the real world a pulse would change the sources and sinks. But I don’t think we’re at point where we can move on to more realistic scenarios until it is fully understood what happens in a simpler hypothetical scenario. The point being made here is that tracers can still deplete out even though the total mass of the material remains constant. That’s the epiphany that has to be grasped if residence time and adjustment time are to be understood. Rick Andre’s pharmacokinetic example below is an excellent real life example of this playing out.
Another point…like you said in the real world a pulse of CO2 will likely change both the natural sources and natural sinks. But…that means those natural sources/sinks are no longer natural.
How useful is that if, technically and hypothetically, no pulse can ever be permanently removed?
AT is useful because that is the metric that determines how long mass stays in the atmosphere. It is the mass of all CO2 that drives radiative forcing; not the specific kinds of CO2 that happen to be in the atmosphere.
“In the real world a pulse would change the sources and sinks. But I don’t think we’re at point where we can move on to more realistic scenarios until it is fully understood what happens in a simpler hypothetical scenario.”
Now you are just waffling, trying to cover your butt. There is no simpler hypothetical than an equilibrium being disturbed by a pulse. You either don’t understand or are deliberately obfuscating to avoid agreement with the math of this classic kinetic phenomenon. If you know something I don’t, please provide a reference that explains what you are trying to say.
“Rick Andre’s pharmacokinetic example below is an excellent real life example of this playing out.”
His example supports my position not yours. You are reading what you want into it and it is wrong.
I don’t know where I said that a real world pulse changes both natural sources and sinks. A real world pulse of anything (C14 or FF CO2) only changes the sink/removal/absorp_tion processes. It doesn’t affect any other source unless they change independently. That is why we considered the hypothetical case where the source didn’t change except for the pulse.
If AT is useful, please write the equations one uses to calculate it.
bdgwx,
The atm c14 decay appears to have an e time of ~ 16-18 y. So I dont understand why Salby and Berry think that this confirms their simple 4-6 year e-time model anyway.
Here is a simple way to understand a 17 y residence time. Consider only the atmosphere, 700 Gt carbon, mixed layer, 1000 Gt, and deep ocean, 38000 Gt reservoirs.
Consider the cyclic flows between them to be 100 Gt/y for atm-ML and 100 Gt/y for ML-DO (from Wiki).
The initial decay has ~ 7 y TC, but transitions to a long term decay with 17 y time constant. This makes sense because the combined atm-ML reservoir is 1700 GT and has a 17 y residence time.
You can simulate this in an excel spreadsheet. The decay fits nicely to the actual data.
Make sense to you?
Chic,
Let me give you real world experiment you can perform to help you visual what RT and AT are all about. In a 5 gallon bucket connect a pump that removes 1 gal/min and a garden hose that injects 1 gal/min. Start the level off a 3 gallons.
Q1: Will the level of the water change?
Now add 1 gallon of red dye. Change nothing else with the system. Keep the original 1 gal/min source and sink the same way it was before.
Q2: What is the level of the water now?
Q3: How long does the red dye stay in the bucket?
Q4: How long does the additional 1 gallon stay in the bucket?
Chic,
And here are the answers.
Q1: No. Because the sources and sinks are both 1 gal/min the level of the water remains at 3 gallons indefinitely.
Q2: 4 gallons. We added 1 gallon of water. The level of the water is now 3 + 1 = 4 gallons.
Q3: RTe = 4 minutes. The amount of red water will deplete to 37% of its original amount after 4 minutes.
Q4: ATe = infinite. Because the source and sinks remain at 1 gal/min there is no removal of mass from the bucket. The level of the water remains at 4 gallons indefinitely.
If you agree with these answers then we can move on the more complex scenario when the pulse perturbs the original sources and sinks.
Nate,
Yeah…I think I agree. Berry’s residence time estimation isn’t really the atmospheric residence time. It’s kind of a hybrid/average residence time of all the reservoirs in play. And because the residence time in the shallow ocean, deep ocean, etc. is longer than in the atmosphere this inflates his estimate. This is why I’ve said before that his e-time figure isn’t even really the atmospheric residence time nor is it the atmospheric adjustment time either. His estimation isn’t wrong. I mean it is technically correct for what he is trying to measure. It’s just that his measurement is of something that isn’t useful for climate purposes.
I do think his estimation may be useful for radiocarbon dating though. The reason is because you need a model to adjust for the C14 ratio relaxation post bomb spike era otherwise radiocarbon dates may be off a few years. In fact, there is a whole line of forensic science that opened up specifically because of the C14 bomb spike.
Is this what you were thinking?
Berry just states that 16 y is the measured bomb C14 e-time, but he doesnt seem to calculate it with his model.
Yeah I think it is worth understanding the bomb decay since it probes the properties of the carbon reservoirs, their sizes and their exchange rates, that are in models.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
“2000 GtCO2 got emitted by humans. If my math is fuzzy then please sharpen it up. Where did the 2000 GtCO2 go?”
10% is in the air. 90% went into the biosphere and hydrosphere.
The increase from 280 to 410 ppm is 130 ppm. That is 1000 GtCO2. If only 2000 GtCO2 * 0.1 = 200 GtCO2 of human emissions caused the 1000 GtCO2 increase then what caused the remaining 1000 – 200 = 800 GtCO2 increase? Remember…the biosphere and hydrosphere are net sinks. They take carbon from the atmosphere. They don’t give it to the atmosphere.
Furthermore if 2000 * 0.9 = 1800 GtCO2 went into the biosphere and hydrosphere then why isn’t ocean pH declining faster than it currently is?
“…what caused the remaining 1000 200 = 800 GtCO2 increase?”
A combination of 100 years of global temperature increase and CO2 sources not accounted for in the Boden estimates.
The biosphere and hydrosphere both give and take CO2 from the atmosphere. About 97.5% of the total sources is sinked annually leaving the surplus of 2.5 ppm/year.
Not all of the CO2 absorbed by the hydrosphere causes a commensurate change in pH based solely on the H2CO3 dissociation. Some carbonate forms and precipitates.
What reservoir was a net emitter of the missing 800 GtCO2 driven by temperature to account for the remaining atmospheric increase?
What reservoir was a net absorber of the 1800 GtCO2 that humans emitted and which you claim does not contribute to an increase in atmospheric CO2?
Remember…a reservoir can only ever be a net emitter or a net absorber at any given moment. It cannot be both simultaneously.
Good point on the dissolved inorganic compounds.
Let me make the question simple.
If the hydrosphere is a net absorber of mass how could it possibly be the cause of a mass increase in the atmosphere?
–If the hydrosphere is a net absorber of mass how could it possibly be the cause of a mass increase in the atmosphere?–
It’s said the biosphere absorbs and emits about 100 billion tons of CO2 per year. I guess it’s at least 100 billion tons, but probably less than 1 trillion tons of CO2 within a year.
Or “just” the ocean breathes in and out 100 billion tons per year, and forests are doing same thing- a plant both emits CO2 and absorbs CO2 and stores CO2 or carbon in terms of structure and in terms of sugars, which burns when it’s night time.
Its a matter of proper and logical definition of net absorber.
Its a dynamic situation. You have a carbon cycle just like a water cycle. net absorber needs to mean gaining mass itself, yet we know that the ocean both gains and loses CO2 mass. If you set mineralization and ocean photosynthesis at a constant then net absorber means absorbing at greater than the rate of mineralization plus ocean photosynthesis. And if absorbing at a lesser rate that that then its contributing to mass increase in the atmosphere.
This dynamic cycle runs constantly and you need to account for the entire cycle not just a part of it.
Another thought on that. Mankind is here on earth doing God’s work. Since we generally consider mineralization a permanent sequestration of carbon and there is only X amount of carbon on earth, God is in need of a creature or force that is going to dig the stuff back up and put in back in circulation or life ends on earth when we run out of carbon.
Pretty comforting thinking that if we kill ourselves off in the process what a great thing we have done for the planet and all the life left on it.
Just what we needed, more religious arguments!
Nate says: ”Just what we needed, more religious arguments!”
You thought that was a religious argument? You obviously don’t understand the difference between a belief in a God (or non-belief for that matter) and religion.
You probably also don’t understand the difference between evolution and creation;
or freewill and determinism.
Also there was no argument presented. bdgwx simply didn’t understand how with all of human emissions and the need for some to go into the ocean; how the ocean could be anything but a net absorber and therefore could not contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I was just providing an explanation of that and pointing out that there is too little known about the entire carbon process and its current state to determine the answer.
After all somebody needs to keep a heads up for lions while everybody else is mindlessly chowing down on the fresh government kill or providing that lunch counter free advertising.
Bill, you tell us that people are doing God’s work, but you don’t think thats a religious argument???
Riiiight..
Nate says: ”Bill, you tell us that people are doing Gods work, but you dont think thats a religious argument???
Riiiight..”
That depends upon whether you have explicit ideas of who God is. Religion is very explicit about that.
IMO, if you are an atheist and you have explicit ideas about what everybody should be doing you are being religious in nature. So I think you actually have it backwards and are elevating form over substance.
bill said: bdgwx simply didn’t understand how with all of human emissions and the need for some to go into the ocean; how the ocean could be anything but a net absorber and therefore could not contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Just to clarify…my belief that the ocean is a net absorber is based on observations of the partial pressure of CO2, pH, and carbonate ion concentrations in the ocean. The fact that human emissons of 260 ppm and that only 130 ppm accumulated in the atmosphere certainly hasn’t been ignored, but its not the reason I think the ocean is a net absorber of carbon.
bdgwx says: ”Just to clarifymy belief that the ocean is a net absorber is based on observations of the partial pressure of CO2, pH, and carbonate ion concentrations in the ocean. The fact that human emissons of 260 ppm and that only 130 ppm accumulated in the atmosphere certainly hasnt been ignored, but its not the reason I think the ocean is a net absorber of carbon.”
Well you are certainly entitled to believe what you wish. Just that in this debate I haven’t seen you provide observations of the partial pressures and instead all I have heard is discussion about how much anthropogenic-sourced carbon remains in the atmosphere.
Further the current NOAA website on studies of this states this: ”Currently, large uncertainties in the air-sea flux of CO2 prevent verification of the partitioning of fossil fuel CO2 between the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere. These uncertainties limit the ability of models to realistically predict future atmospheric CO2 levels.”
So I am interested where you got the information from.
Both biosphere and hydrosphere could have emitted the 800 GtCO2 you are interested in. I think mostly the hydrosphere.
Again both reservoirs absorbed a portion of human emissions, but I don’t claim human emissions did not contribute any, just not all of the CO2 rise.
The reservoirs cannot be net absorbers otherwise CO2 would not rise. However, the reservoirs, probably both, contribute to the rise along with human emissions. It’s complicated. Study my model.
Reply to your comment on the ‘1 ppm pulse’
Interesting discussion. Again I recognize the analogies between the carbon cycle and pharmacokinetics and moreover in pharmacokinetics one can prove a model hundreds of times by observations.
If a drug is infused at a constant rate intravenously, 99% of a steady state is reached after 7 half-lives (amount in/unit of time = amount out/unit of time). Suppose the steady state concentrations are 1 nanogram/ml. If a small amount of drug is added once (= 1 ppm pulse) then this amount is mixed in the total amount present in the body. After 7 half-lives the steady-state concentrations will be again 1 nanogram/ml. That is what we can prove hundreds of times in pharmacokinetics by experiments. The new steady-state (after 7 times the half-life) = the initial steady state because the FRACTION of the drug that is excreted/unit of time remains CONSTANT (a small pulse will not saturate the excretion system). If a first-order process is involved, then even a large pulse will also result in the initial steady-state concentrations after 7xhalf-life.
Of course here I am repeating your reasoning applied to pharmacokinetics.
There are definitely some parallels for sure.
One convention difference is that carbon cycle research typically uses e-folds as opposed to half-lives…same concept just using 1/e instead of 1/2 for the metric.
One tangible difference is that the rate of removal (=excretion) isn’t constant with the carbon cycle. In fact, it’s really quite complicated.
But yeah…the general concepts are very similar.
Actually, let me extend your pharmacokinetics narrative with an interesting twist. Let’s suppose you administer a drug and wait for the 7 half-lives to bring the body into equilibrium such that the concentration of the drug in the body remains constant (in = out). Now replace the injection (which is still coming in at a constant rate) with the same drug except this time it has a tracer (maybe a dye, an isotopic variation, a right-handed molecule instead of left-handed, or whatever…I don’t know…I’m not a pharma guy) in it such that the tracer is inert and does not effect the chemistry of its action. Perform a few doses like this and then revert back to using untraced doses.
Will the concentration of the drug (traced + untraced) remain constant? Yes.
Will the ratio of traced vs untraced stay constant? No.
The traced-untraced ratio pulses high upon initial administration of the traced doses but then follows a relaxation curve as the traced drug gets removed from the body. But…and this is crucial…the total concentration of the drug remains unchanged. Question #1 is most like adjustment time to the carbon cycle and question #2 is most like residence time to the carbon cycle. With the pharmacokinetics narrative above it is the total concentration of the drug, not whether it has the tracer, that determines its effect on the body. And if you try to draw conclusions about the total concentration using the tracer you may overdose your patient thinking the drug is being removed faster from the body than it really is. It’s the same concept with the carbon cycle as well.
Question #1 has nothing to do with adjustment time. If you continue to infuse the drug at a constant rate, it’s no surprise that the concentration doesn’t change.
Question #2 is exactly like the residence time. The tracer will disappear from the body according to its half-life.
On the bright side, you have been introduced to the concept of pharmacokinetics. Learn the one compartment models first. Then upgrade to multi-compartment models. You will see the Bern model in a new perspective. I look forward to your subsequent comments.
Q1 illustrates adjustment time nicely because although the tracer depletes out in rapid order the total amount of the drug remained constant. In this case AT is infinite…meaning that it takes an infinite amount of time for the drug concentration to relax by any amount. This despite the fact that the tracer relaxes in a finite amount of time.
The point…if you try to derive the half-life of a drug concentration in the body under this balanced input=output scenario by injecting a tracer and watching the decay rate of the tracer only you will draw the wrong conclusion about the half life of the drug itself.
In the same manner Salby/Barry/Harde draw the wrong conclusion about the e-time of the mass relaxation.
Try to forget about defending the consensus and concentrate on the models and their maths. Where in the literature, other than climate science, is adjustment time defined and used?
“…if you try to derive the half-life of a drug concentration in the body under this balanced input=output scenario by injecting a tracer and watching the decay rate of the tracer only you will draw the wrong conclusion about the half life of the drug itself.”
That is simply wrong. If the tracer is identical in every way to the drug that obeys first-order single-compartment kinetics in the therapeutic dose range, its pharmacokinetic profile will be identical to the drug’s. You need to understand this simple model before advancing to multi-compartment models (or non-linear kinetic models) that are more relevant to the CO2 situation.
Please don’t introduce new terms (mass relaxation) without defining them.
Err on my part…
you will draw the wrong conclusion about the half life of the drug itself.
…should have been…
you will draw the wrong conclusion about the concentration change of the drug in given the current state of the system.
In other words, if you see the tracer depleting and conflate that with the total concentration you will think the drug is depleting as well. Yet it is not. The drug concentration remains constant even though the tracer is depleting.
Ok, now that is perfectly understandable. After that nonsense above with the 1 gal/min hoses and the red dye, I was about to give up on you. I’ll explain.
The body usually eliminates drugs according to a first order kinetic process. There are exceptions and different models to accommodate them. But we have to agree on how this simple one compartment model behaves or we will never advance to the more complex atmosphere/biosphere/surface-ocean/deep-ocean problem.
I will respond to your red dye model here, but not above. It is irrelevant, because it represents neither human pharmacokinetics nor atmosphere/reservoir physics. The reason is because there are no valves limiting the outflow to a constant rate. An increase of a gallon to the tank will exert more pressure on an unrestricted drain and the level will gradually drop until the original level is reached. Try it at home if you don’t believe me. Adjust the inflow to a leaky pail of water until the level stays constant. Then fill the pail to the top and watch the level return to the original level.
You don’t have to agree with me, but I can’t keep this up forever. So here is my ultimatum. Either agree about the simple one compartment model or give me an equation for adjustment time or a reference to someone else who knows how to calculate an adjustment time, or else I’m done.
Either agree about the simple one compartment model or give me an equation for adjustment time or a reference to someone else who knows how to calculate an adjustment time, or else I’m done.
Bern model.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Thank you for your contributing the pharmacokinetic perspective. The first-order kinetic process is not sufficiently appreciated on this blog, IMO.
Not looking good for chloroquine
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/column-experts-lose-enthusiasm-chloroquine-215114339.html
I miss the daily updates on Arctic sea ice we were getting from some people here a couple of months ago. Why did you all stop?
Well…the recovery sure looked promising for awhile. Then poof. We’re now 2nd lowest for this date. The current record holder goes all the way back to…wait for it…2019.
Indeed. I wonder why the people who I was referring to were unable to give me the update?
I thought arctic sea ice was supposed to have disappeared 5 or 6 years ago you know “nice new route for the container ships”.
Regards
Harry
Would you link me to this claim in an IPCC report.
Make sure the claim states absolute certainty.
Minibrain Midas,
Supposed does not mean absolute certainty, does it? Why are you trying to involve the IPCC? More stupid alarmist attempts at diversion?
“Supposed to” means “meant to have”.
Glad to be of assistance with your English deficiency.
Harry,
Nah. The prediction for “disappeared” is like 2500 or something like that. The prediction for < 1e6 km^2 at the summer min is currently around 2060 for RCP4.5+.
I will say the IPCC has a poor track record on Arctic sea ice predictions. For example, in 2001 they predicted that annual sea ice wouldn't fall below 10.5e6 km^2 until 2040 at the earliest. It actually happened in 2007. I would not be surprised if the IPCC once again moves up the date for < 1e6 km^2 for AR6 due out in 2021.
The issue of course will be that after summer first goes ice-free (less than 1 million square km) for a couple of weeks, when the the ice doesn’t disappear the following summer the deniers will be ranting that “global warming is over”.
At the other end of the spectrum, Guy McPherson sheeple will claim that summer ice will never be back. It should take only a year or two to silence them.
The reality is that the ice is trending to zero around 2035-2040. We could get a one-off ice-free period a few years from now if we get another freak year like 2012. By 2035-40 we would expect ice-free conditions only every second year on average, and it would take a couple of decades after that before we get an ice-free window every summer. Perhaps the IPCC’s 2060 date was for this.
An entire summer (3 months) free of ice is a LONG time away, and always has been despite denier claims to the contrary.
It is a bit weird, but many (maybe even most) of the alarmist prediction for sea ice or any climate parameter for that matter actually come from contrarian sources. Why is that?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Lots of sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
https://tinyurl.com/ndhsnbu
https://tinyurl.com/p9l9qmh
What did some of you human-caused global warming fanatics think? That is was all melting away to oblivion?
Correction – That it was melting…
Antarctic sea ice is actually doing pretty well.
Arctic sea ice…not so much. It is well the climatological average right now. And it has been declining at an unexpected rate since about 2000 or so.
No reputable scientist or scientific institution believes sea ice will melt away to oblivion though.
The global sea ice average extent has gone from 23,000,000 km^2 in 1979 to 21,000,000 km^2 in 2020.
https://tinyurl.com/y7w6bt53
Do all of you silly global warming zealots think that 4 decade decline is outside of natural climate variation?
The Arctic sea ice extent reached a maximum in 1979 due to the cold decades of the 1960s and the 1970s. Why do you think the climate back then was the “normal” of all normals?
Do all of you silly global warming zealots think that 4 decade decline is outside of natural climate variation?
I’m not sure what a “silly global warming zealot” is or whether I fit the definition or not so the question may not posed to me, but I’ll answer anyway.
Yes.
Well the last glacial advance started sometime around 1200ad and lasted until approximate 1850ad. That included 150 years after the LIA ended and things started warming up again.
We could be in for another 200 years of warming with 350 years of ice retreat.
I realize thats anathema to all those absolutely convinced the world started heading for another period of glaciation about 3,000 years ago. Has to be about 1,000 studies out there suggesting that. No doubt if you read them all it would be like water boarding yourself into confessing to stuff you didn’t do.
The level of galactic radiation in Oulu is rising and is already at the same level as in 2009.
Good afternoon to everyone in this post by Dr. Roy Spencer! I have two questions that I would like to ask:
First, I would like to know what Dr. Spencer thinks about what Chic Bowdrie published the day before yesterday, April 13:
But youd need to provide evidence of the increased insolation
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
And another different question:
It is the acidification of the oceans due to global warming (even if it is a moderate warming, as confirmed by Dr. Spencer through his work) Or is it due to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
That is, in the hypothesis that most of the global warming was natural that Dr. Spencer presents as possible (*) (and that we would not even know), Would ocean acidification be caused by such warming or by anthropogenic CO2 emissions that have occurred since the mid-19th century?
Ocean acidification Is it a process that only depends on anthropogenic emissions, or is it the sum of the two processes (global warming and anthropogenic emissions since 1850), even if they were not related to each other?
About Ocean Acidification:
National Geographic. Enero 2020.
“The director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco, has said that acidification is the “equally bad twin sister” of global warming.”
……….
“Seawater should be slightly basic or alkaline, with a pH of around 8.2 near the surface.
. Until now, CO₂ emissions have reduced the pH of surface water by 0.1 points. But like the Richter scale, the pH scale is logarithmic, so even the smallest numerical changes represent large-scale effects.
A decrease in pH of 0.1 means that the water has become 30% more acidic.
If current trends continue, the pH of surface water will drop to 7.8 in 2100.
At that point, the water will be 150% more acidic than in 1800. ”
https://www-nationalgeographic-com-es.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalgeographic.com.es/mundo-ng/grandes-reportajes/acidificacion-de-los-oceanos_4127/amp?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15867945933905&_ct=1586794652056&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=De%20%251%24s
Sorry!
I forgot before!
(*)
“We do not know natural energy flows to this accuracy, thus
climate change could be mostly natural, and we would not know it!
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/my-presentation-to-the-pacific-pension-investment-institute/
Thank you all very much in advance of course! (Especially to the owner of this super blog!)
A thousand sincere apologies for not having said it before !!!
Midas
” I miss the daily updates on Arctic sea ice we were getting from some people here a couple of months ago. Why did you all stop? ”
This is not quite true. Bookmark the two links below, and you’ll keep informed, as only the data below them is changed over time.
Arctic sea ice extent daily
– absolute:
https://tinyurl.com/y7leobwg
– anomalies wrt mean of 1981-2010:
https://tinyurl.com/ybaenwob
Here you see why the people hoping 2 months ago that Arctic sea ice would be growing again now keep silent.
Antarctic is rock-solid, and keeps a bit below the 30 year mean.
J.-P. D.
I actually check sea ice levels regularly. I knew the reason why that discourse had ceased – I was just hoping that one of those people would for once give an honest answer. Instead the silence continued.
You Einshtains have to take two month of sea ice data and project it straight line into year 2100 , otherwise you posting is totally useless
That’s the pot calling the kettle black. It was contrarians who extrapolated 2 months of data and predicted Arctic sea ice would only go up from here.
On the flip side we utilize lines of evidence and data from multiple models to make long term predictions about Arctic sea ice. But even these dynamic models have severely underestimated the decline. This is why the chatter among experts is that the 2060 date for < 1e6 km^2 of Arctic sea ice is likely still too conservative.
bdgwx says: ”On the flip side we utilize lines of evidence and data from multiple models ”
we? who is we? Einshtains?
BH
Let me get this right – your only “argument” is to make up a ridiculous name.
First off, Albert Einstein’s surname is pronounced with a sh sound in his native Germany, due to the second syllable of his surname beginning with “st” (literally, his name means “one stone”). The vowel grouping ei in German is pronounced similar to the English “eye”, though with less emphasis on the first part of the diphthong. (See the Wikipedia entry for more details.)
https://youtu.be/ewdqIregQis
Firstly, I know precisely how the “st” is pronounced in German. You seem to believe you are educating me.
Secondly, The spelling is indeed ridiculous, and was designed to be ridiculous.
Thirdly, my point stands – Bill Hunter’s only “argument” was to use this invented word. Feel free to challenge that after looking at his comment again.
FOURTHLY – It speaks volumes that you chose to respond to this comment, rather than address my request to “please point out where I did this two-month extrapolation”. Having trouble finding it are we?
Midas says:
”BH
Let me get this right – your only “argument” is to make up a ridiculous name.”
First, arguments do not end with a question mark.
Second, I didn’t make up the name. Bdwgx answered a question about the that name in the plural using the pronoun ”we”. I was just asking exactly who ”we” is.
How disingenuous of you.
Let me try that:
What sort of person are you? A lying, uneducated, Conservatard?
There … “I was ONLY asking what sort of a person you are.”
Is that how it works?
Eben
Would you please point out where I did this two-month extrapolation. I’m struggling to find it.
Des, please stop trolling.
https://scholar.google.es/scholar?cluster=14242936990138311648&hl=es&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5
“The last thirty years (1985-2014) highlighted as a period of persistent decline in extent of the Arctic sea ice in the month of September, being from 2002 on the lowest values since the beginning of the series.
Thus, the lowest annual lows in the pre-satellite period, which register in the first decades of the series (1943, 1945, 1952, 1960) move around about 6.5 million km2 , and are higher than the minimum of any year after 2001.
According to the data of this work, between 1935 and 2014, the linear trend of the extent of the Arctic sea ice in September it is negative and statistically significant, with a value of -3.5% per decade.
However, until the mid-1980s the trend was very positive in terms of statistically significant.
This fact could suppose the existence of a multidecadal oscillation superimposed on a descending bottom trend in the extent of Arctic sea ice.
It is possible Multidecadal oscillation is not observable in Walsh or HadISST, but it is observable in temperature and other parameters. Arctic climatic meters (Polyakov et al. 2003a, 2004 and 2008) and has also been targeted for the by other studies (Polyakov et al. 2003b; Miles et al., 2014).”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974
Look ay “Conclusiones”
Look at “Conclusions” I would say
The sun produces Co2 not us!
Oh I see – so there is a constant stream of CO2 travelling 150 million km from the sun to the earth, is that right? Or is your language skills that are poor?
Des, please stop trolling.
“The world seems to be obsessed with what is happening on earth and in the atmosphere, and they do not realize that the Earth is completely subsidiary to the oceans, which are home to 98% of the planet’s species,” says Dr Dan Laffoley. , Vice President of Marine Sciences of the World Commission on Protected Areas of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Senior Advisor for Marine Sciences and Conservation of its World Marine and Polar Program. “What was believed in 2004 was something that we wouldn’t have to worry about until 2050 or 2070 is happening now.”
https://es-euronews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/es.euronews.com/amp/2020/02/19/la-acidificacion-de-los-oceanos-un-enorme-reto-para-los-ecosistemas?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15870361974689&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=De%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fes.euronews.com%2F2020%2F02%2F19%2Fla-acidificacion-de-los-oceanos-un-enorme-reto-para-los-ecosistemas
It will be my language skills because I don’t want to say that Midas and Sandra ..
Rather what I want to ask is if the increase in global temperature
(wherever it comes from) is the primary catalyst responsible for acidifying the ocean ……
and that if in the event that there had been no anthropogenic emissions from the 19th century, acidification would also occur due to the increase in global temperature, with CO2 in the pre-industrial state?
No. The net uptake of carbon from the atmosphere is what is lowering ocean pH.
No. Global warming sans artificial injection of carbon actually works to raise ocean pH. The reason is because the ocean cannot hold as much carbon when it is warmer thus it becomes a net emitter of carbon.
bdgwx Nate sort of struck out in providing a scientific link supporting the idea that the oceans are a net absorber. Can you do any better or are you going to stomp your feet and insist its true.
The link provided by Nate shows that alkalinity changes modifies by about 10% the change in atmospheric carbon, but the study assumes 1) that the oceans were in carbon equilibrium through the entire article, and 2) that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the warming we have experienced. and 3) uses GCMs to suggest that ocean overturning is too slow to overcome the projected lab chemistry.
are you going to do worse than Nate and come up with nothing to support your claims.
IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 3.
bdgwx says: ”I am impressed by 10 sources, didn’t read any of them but with 10 it must be right.”
The IPCC Assessment Report is not a science paper. Its a political science propaganda piece that cherry picks conclusions to present to the public. I am only interested in the methodologies of how conclusions are arrived at not what people want studies to say.
bill said: bdgwx says: I am impressed by 10 sources, didnt read any of them but with 10 it must be right.
I think there has been a mistake here. That quote is not from me.
The IPCC Assessment Report is not a science paper.
Yes. It literally it is.
I am only interested in the methodologies of how conclusions are arrived at not what people want studies to say.
You should probably read IPCC AR5 WGI for a brief summary and overview of the topics related to this blog post. I recommend focusing on ch. 3 and 6 for this specific line of discussion. You can then follow up with the 1000+ citations from both of these chapters for the details you desire.
Obviously you are unaware of the fact that a 1000 unconvincing studies does not add up to a convincing study?
Yes. I think the IPCC AR5 WGI report in general is convincing.
What amount and kind of evidence would be convincing to you?
“1000 unconvincing studies” are even more unconvincing when you dont bother to read them.
And if 1000 is too much effort then at least read the summary. We’re only talking about a couple hundred pages between the two chapters here and it’s actually summarized quite well and in terms that even non-experts like me can generally understand.
begwx says: “And if 1000 is too much effort then at least read the summary. We’re only talking about a couple hundred pages between the two chapters here and it’s actually summarized quite well and in terms that even non-experts like me can generally understand.”
Obviously it was too much effort for you. So you went for the couple hundred pages of biased pablum instead that IPCC reports have largely become because of the focus on “popular” science.
I would suggest that if you can’t summarize the key points in a few paragraphs, you didn’t get much beyond being convinced out of reading the IPCC propaganda. You were obviously gob smacked by the sheer number of scientific references while even failing to understand how a net absorber could be a net contributor to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The answer is incredibly simple and its not even discussed by the IPCC because they politically consider it as obfuscation that will get you thrown into various boreholes on political websites advertising themselves as sources of scientific information if you try to bring the topic up.
But its the key. It runs contrary to the base environmental assumption that the world is already ideal. Thus alarmists on ocean acidification make unsupported claims about starving and melting shells of shellfish, while studies one after another find a small bit of introduced acid actually causes the animals to grow larger and more quickly. Nutrients in the environment have two sides to them as most nutrients have levels at which they are harmful. Ignorance about the effect makes fertile territory for witch doctorism and a vehicle by which to gain additional authoritarian powers. More reasonable voices call for precaution not realizing the precaution is akin to timidness and a fear of rocking the apple cart.
You can argue otherwise but its not timidness that got this world to the point its at and I see the point its at as a relatively good thing.
Success breeds timidness as one begins to look at protecting his personal assets and loses his sense of adventure especially if it was the adventuresomeness of his parents that provided him with all that wealth. The flipside of the propaganda then has to be sold to the masses without the wealth.
First thing that has to disappear is any thoughts of the world not being perfect. Natural change isn’t allowed so its ignored. Politically every single bit of change is attributed to some manufactured devil. And the most important element on the planet for life becomes a pollutant.
bill hunter
” I am only interested in the methodologies of how conclusions are arrived at not what people want studies to say. ”
Yes and, pretty much like trash specialist Robertson, you use to write endless comments about that.
*
” Obviously you are unaware of the fact that a 1000 unconvincing studies does not add up to a convincing study? ”
Neither are you able to show us that convincing study, let alone would you be able to present us event 1 % of the unconvincing ones.
What is your pretentious blah blah really worth, bill hunter?
Bindidon says: ”Neither are you able to show us that convincing study, let alone would you be able to present us event 1 % of the unconvincing ones.
What is your pretentious blah blah really worth, bill hunter?”
Well actually I would like to have some information to assuage your fears Bindidon. But you should understand that science advances by actually proposing testable theories and religion advances by proposing untestable theories.
So you want to see a paper refuting one of the untestable theories like the multi-layered greenhouse theory?
The capitalistic system is constantly criticized because of its Madison Avenue productions trying to get people to buy stuff they don’t need. Personally I think its worthwhile giving product reviews from my own perspective of what doesn’t satisfy me about them. What do you think?
Sorry if it’s a very silly question …
but I would like very much if someone answered me with an answer explained
and I would really appreciate it too !!!
Has anyone heard anymore about the hemolung that a caller on Rush mentioned a couple weeks ago, instead of a ventilator which requires inducing a coma? Apparently the hemolung allows patients to remain conscious and continue ventilation exercises, only requiring a catheter that removes excess co2, while oxygenating the blood.
I am totally ignorant of such things…
https://tinyurl.com/ycg6bnbe
Thank you a lot bdgwx!
!!!
Adelaida, look at the level of CO2 on the surface. The ocean, thanks to the work of algae, copes well with CO2.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
When the temperature in the north rises, diatoms will soon start operating on the oceans.
Adelaida, the Pacific is now ready for La Nina. This will happen when solar activity increases.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202004.gif
The impact of a decrease in CO2 on temperature in North America is already visible.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01002/7ioqjbs3fw0y.png
Hahaha – when CO2 levels go up you say it has little to no effect on temperatures, but when they go down, suddenly the effect is over-stated by many orders of magnitude.
Maybe (re) is ironic?
Ren (he forgot the ‘n’ this time) doesn’t have the ability to be ironic. He doesn’t know how to deviate from his monotonous script.
One of the leftist alarmists common traits is absence of sense of humor, you would have to be totally dense to think that was a sirius statement.
Or you would have to be completely unaware of ren’s propensity for making such BS statements and his own humourless nature. Did you know for example that some time back the tropopause “almost hit the ground”?
Des, please stop trolling.
Thanks Ren!
The CO2 charts are really nice, but I can’t interpret them …
There are many things that I do not understand or do not interpret, but reading all of you, seeing or reading the links and browsing there, I am learning a little at least …
About the Nino and nina that I was reading a little and I found this image about the behavior of the walker’s circulation that I think is very good:
https://images.app.goo.gl/yoqK2ri1eHryWqJH7
“The oxygen content of coastal waters and open oceans has decreased for at least half a century, largely due to human activities that have increased global temperatures and the nutrients released into coastal waters. These changes accelerated consumption “Oxygen by microbial respiration, reduces the solubility of oxygen in water and reduces the rate of oxygen replenishment from the atmosphere to the ocean interior, with a wide range of biological and ecological consequences.”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240
Changing the hypothesis of global warming of anthropogenic origin by mostly natural, the situation is the same …
“over the past 300 million years, the ocean’s pH has never dropped more than 0.6 units below the 1750 level. But, at the current rate of emissions, the ocean’s pH could drop more than 0.7 units below pre-industrial level. [4]
The current rate of acidification is at least 100 times higher than the maximum rate of the last hundreds of thousands of years”
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidificaci%C3%B3n_del_oc%C3%A9ano
From wikipedia! Does anyone have more information or different information?
Ad,
Ask yourself how pH could possibly be measured in year 1750. Also, try to stick to the topic of the thread. Geoff S
geoff…”Ask yourself how pH could possibly be measured in year 1750″.
Never mind 1750, they did not start looking at it seriously till 1950. Between those dates were WW I, WW II and other wars while the Soviet Union and China were virtually shut down. Most CO2 density was measured in the atmosphere and concentrations exceeding 400 ppmv were found in the 1930 – 1940 era.
Adelaida: the first use of the phrase ‘ocean acidification’ was in a paper by Ken Caldeira and Michael E. Wickett (Nature, vol 425, p365 in September 2003) – from America of course – where the climate scare began.
The term ‘acidification’ when applied to minor changes in the alkalinity of a solution is in my view a useful propaganda tool for the climate doom-mongers, intended to deceive.
Here’s how the ‘30% increase in acidification’ sleight of hand works. If you already know how the pH system works, my apologies. If not, here it is, from first principles:
To begin, a pH of 7 means that a solution contains 10 to the minus 7 (10-7) grams of hydrogen (in the form of hydrogen ions) per litre. Translating this into a number, it means that our solution contains 0.0000001 (that is, 1/10,000,000) grams of hydrogen per litre.
A solution of pH6 contains 0.000001 (1/1,000,000) grams of hydrogen per litre, and one of pH8 has 0.00000001 (1/100,000,000) grams of hydrogen per litre.
A solution of pH7 contains 10 times as much hydrogen as a solution pf pH8. Hence, pH decreases as hydrogen concentration increases.
Just in case you want to look a little further, here’s a calculation examople. As you can imagine, things get a little awkward when you’re talking about for example hydrogen ion changes from 7.9 to 7.7. How to calculate the hydrogen ion concentration from these? What you need is the negative antilog calculator function on your pocket calculator.
Whenever pH is mentioned, there’s a rather important minus sign which is by convention omitted for convenience, and this causes confusion among many.
Here are two examples: a value for a pH of 8.3 would be typed in as -8.3. The antilog value will emerge as 5.0119 X 10-9 (5.0119 times ten to the minus 9), and this is the hydrogen ion concentration.
For a pH of 8.2, type in -8.2. The answer will be 6.3095 X 10-9. The difference between 5.0119 and 6.3095 is 25.89%, which is for argument’s sake 26%.
In other words, the difference in 0.1 of a pH unit between 8.2 and 8.3 is 26%.
I hope this helps.
I think that 30% is rounding things off a little too far, but who cares? For propaganda purposes it’s ideal!
So your issue is primarily with the terminology?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
DREMT: seconded!
Good observation Sherrington, I will look for that line too ..
and about the second:
I’ll try!
And Thank you Sherrington!
Here’s a recent article on one component of uncertainty with the IPCC’s AR5 RCP scenarios. In a nutshell…carbon cycle models used for AR5 do not include land based carbon cycle feedbacks like permafrost thawing. It is believed this lack of feedback analysis in AR5 is more likely to lead to an underestimation of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for each RCP emission scenario. The inclusion of this once omitted feedback increases the RCP6.0 (low mitigation) scenario from 3C by 2100 to 3.1C or 3.2C per the new models.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-carbon-cycle-feedbacks-could-make-global-warming-worse
Given that CMIP6 predictions, observational extrapolations, and better carbon cycle modeling suggest we may be understanding warming potential it would not surprise me if AR6 bumps up the final warming amounts for each of the RCP scenarios. I also would not be surprised if 2xCO2 sensitivity where to change from 1.5-4.5 to 2.0-4.5 given that the lower bound to the warming is continually be constrained with each decade of warming. With the warming currently at 1.1C and an energy imbalance of +0.6 W/m^2 and a modest 0.5C per W/m^2 sensitivity the 1.5C of warming might already be baked in with only 1.5xCO2.
Where do you get the +0.6 W/m2 imbalance? You never include the uncertainty either.
And, of course, the 1.5K of warming might never occur since there is no evidence that more CO2 will have any further effect on global temperatures.
Cheng 2020: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf
+0.58 W/m^2 with an error of 0.01 W/m^2.
This does not include the uptake by the cyrosphere, atmosphere, and land so it is conservative.
Even if CO2 were to stop increasing today the planet will still warm to pull the imbalance back to 0 W/m^2. Using a conservative 0.5C per W/m^2 that is 0.3C of additional warming already in the pipeline. That brings us up to 1.4C.
BTW…I believe Dr. Spencer estimates the imbalance at an even higher +0.8 W/m^2.
Yes IF 1) there is an imbalance related to carbon; 2) not a realized warming due to new or existing imbalances not due to carbon; and 3) that the 1.1c you have already bagged is not in part or wholly a temporary oceanic-like warm phase oscillation that will reverse out in coming decades.
Of course I would agree I don’t have the IPCC magic crystal ball they keep locked up in a handy cabinet that is apt to be used to answer those questions at the behest of the politicians showering them with money and tickets to fame and exotic locations.
I see where Cheng et alia get 0.58 +/- 0.01 W/m2 from the amount of ocean warming from 1985 to 2019. I also see that you could define that warming as an imbalance caused by something. If you suspect it is caused by CO2, then wouldn’t you question why the warming has increased 4.5 times faster than an earlier period when the logarithmic increase in CO2 was about the same. Why has the “forcing” been so much more potent lately?
Isn’t ocean warming more likely due to the measured ASR, OLR, and the net (ASR – OLR) all increasing over the same 1985 to 2019 time period?
“Even if CO2 were to stop increasing today the planet will still warm to pull the imbalance back to 0 W/m^2.”
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. How does more warming produce cooling? Is it a climate stimulus plan?
That reminds me of an old Bazooka Bubblegum wrapper joke. A guy is standing banging his head against a wall. His friend comes along and asks why he is doing that. He says “Because it feels so good when I stop!”
Yes. The energy imbalance measurement itself does not tell you anything about what caused the imbalance. For the cause you need other lines of evidence. But the energy imbalance can tell you how much future warming to expect regardless of what the cause of that imbalance is. You just need to know the climate sensitivity. That’s the the really uncertain piece of information. 0.5C per W/m^2 is on the conservative side. The sensitivity also isn’t static. It is believed to go up as the climate system is perturbed more and more.
“But the energy imbalance can tell you how much future warming to expect regardless of what the cause of that imbalance is.”
At the risk of going around in circles with you again on a different issue, please explain by providing the formula that predicts future warming when the cause of the imbalance stops contributing to the imbalance which is defined by your source as warming in the past.
For example, let’s assume hypothetically that CO2 is the control knob for global temperature. The rise in CO2 hypothetically warmed the atmosphere which in turn warmed the oceans. Then suddenly CO2 remains constant and the atmosphere no longer warms the ocean. How does the ocean continue to warm?
bdgwx,
“Booth and colleagues suggest that most of the uncertainty in future carbon-cycle feedbacks comes from the land carbon cycle – rather than different climate sensitivity or ocean carbon changes. Changes to the land carbon cycle as the world warms and atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase – such as changes in soil respiration and photosynthesis – can allow models that accurately match present-day conditions to end up with much higher CO2 concentrations by 2100.”
I can’t help but say I told you so. Notice how many different sources of additional CO2 emissions Hausfather and Betts mentioned in their article, which aren’t counted in the Boden estimates. These additional sources didn’t just start happening now. And I can’t believe I’m actually agreeing with Greta (on the feedbacks, but not on the climate projections):
“Climate campaigners, such as Greta Thunberg, have also expressed concern that climate projections typically do not fully incorporate the potential range of carbon-cycle feedbacks.”
“Today, around half of the CO2 emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere, with the remainder absorbed by the oceans and land.”
What they meant to say was of the 100 ppm of human and natural emissions, only about 98% is absorbed by the oceans and land.
I also disagree with this, “Overall, the carbon cycle is expected to weaken as a result of climate change, leading to more emissions remaining in the atmosphere and less being absorbed by the land and oceans.”
There’s no evidence that the removal rate is lessening which is what a weakening carbon cycle implies.
chic…”Booth and colleagues suggest that most of the uncertainty in future carbon-cycle feedbacks comes from the land carbon cycle….”
These guys are missing the forest for the trees. If by feedback, they mean a heating feedback caused by CO2, that contradicts the 2nd law and is perpetual motion. You cannot create energy no matter what the hypothesized method.
However, they are egregiously contradicting the Ideal Gas Law. Part of the law is Dalton’s law of partial pressures where he stated that the total pressure of a gas mixture equals the sum of the individual gas pressures.
PV = nRT
If the atmospheric volume and the number of molecules can be considered relatively constant, then pressure is directly proportional to temperature. That’s exactly what we see in the troposphere where temperature declines linearly with pressure.
I think you can equate the partial temperatures contributed by each gas corresponding to the partial pressure that caused the temperature increase. You would do that by considering the mass percent of each gas per unit volume.
Since N2/O2 has a mass percent of close to 99% and CO2 a mass percent of about 0.04%, it doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to see that the contribution of CO2 is effectively nil. Unless, of course, you consider 0.04C per 1C warming relevant.
Missing the forest for the trees seems to be the order of the day.
My hypothesis (based on a simple first order rate of absorp_tion of CO2 by the land and ocean reservoirs that fits the Mauna Loa data) is that there are and have been more CO2 emissions than are accounted for by fossil fuel emissions. Some of these mystery emissions are identified in the article that bdgwx cited.
Pay close attention to this next part. An increase in temperature will result in increasing atmospheric CO2 regardless of the cause of the increase in temperature. There is no justification for jumping to the conclusion that these mystery emissions are a feedback. That’s just what alarmists do. My mistake for not making that clear. Thank you for pointing it out.
chic…”An increase in temperature will result in increasing atmospheric CO2 regardless of the cause of the increase in temperature”.
Agree completely. The 1930’s are still considered the hottest years in the United States. I don’t think that warming was just located in the US, it think the recorded temps elsewhere were faulty.
There is proof for that with CO2 concentrations recorded in Germany by Kreutz in the 1930 – 1940 era. He measured concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv in Germany. Kreutz was trained in chemistry and did over 60,000 measurements. I think that applies to your statement. Warmer oceans will raise the levels of CO2.
When the IPCC used the Industrial Era as the base of their CO2 levels they were being ingenuous. The IE was in the 2nd phase of the Little Ice Age when global temperatures were 1C to 2C below normal. Colder oceans would have absorbed more CO2, therefore their 270 ppmv as a base for modern CO2 levels was taken out of context.
It was so cold in that 2nd phase that farming in the Scottish Highlands was no longer possible. There was an extended famine for years during that era.
Even at that, the IPCC papers cherry-picked 270 ppmv from ice core samples in Antarctica. The air trapped in the ice came from one of the coldest parts of the planet and the air temperature and oceans would have been very cold. Therefore the amount of CO2 in the air should have been abnormally low. They rejected several readings that were many orders higher from different regions in Antarctica.
Clear anomalies of geopotential heigth in the atmosphere above the southern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2020.png
😁
☺
☺
Blaming CO2 for warming is shallow penetration of science. Analysis using data from Quantum Mechanics calculations by Hitran reveals that water vapor increase has caused about 10 times more ground level warming than CO2 increase. WV has been increasing about 1.5% per decade which is MORE THAN IS POSSIBLE from feedback from temperature increase. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Which scientific journal organised the peer-review?
Why not be a stand-up guy and address the science? If you can’t, stand aside and let someone else. Only trolls dredge up the peer-review non-sequitur.
If it hasn’t been peer-reviewed then it is not science, merely someone’s unqualified musings.
midas…”If it hasnt been peer-reviewed then it is not science, merely someones unqualified musings”.
Why would you make such an asinine comment? According to you, all of Isaac Newton’s work was nothing more than unqualified musings.
Even Einstein suffered from the idiots who do peer review. He was once rejected by a journal editor because the editor thought his thesis was not plausible.
IMHO, peer review has prevented good science more than it has helped it. Barry Marshall, the Australian who discovered that duodenal ulcers were caused by a bacterium, heliobacter pylori, was not only rejected by a journal editor, the editor claimed his submission was in the top ten worst submissions he’d ever received.
The original idea behind peer review was to stop laymen from filling scientific journals with garbage. These days, it is used as a political weapon to prevent certain scientists from being published. It also allows garbage science to be published from any scientist with whom the editor agrees.
In other words, peer review has become a barrier to good science.
Gordon Robertson says: ”Why would you make such an asinine comment?”
when one is ignorant all they have is an appeal to authority. . . .the MOMMA reflex!
GR
Are you qualified to assess this paper?
midas…”GR
Are you qualified to assess this paper?”
Sure I am, Dan’s a good guy, his paper seems OK to me. Isn’t that the way peer review works?
You are describing how you guys want it to work for yourselves, not how it actually works. You clearly have no concept of the process involved.
Midas says: -”You are describing how you guys want it to work for yourselves, not how it actually works. You clearly have no concept of the process involved.”
You can certainly straighten out that you know how it works by providing a link to the legally binding standards that peer reviewers are bound to.
BH
Alternatively you could supply a significant number of examples to prove that peer review is based on mateship. If you can’t, it is no more than guesswork on your part. You DO know that it is the journal who chooses the reviewers, right? Not the writer of the paper.
Midas says: ”Alternatively you could supply a significant number of examples to prove that peer review is based on mateship. If you cant, it is no more than guesswork on your part. You DO know that it is the journal who chooses the reviewers, right? Not the writer of the paper.”
LOL! Look Midas anything and everything is going to happen in the absence of enforceable standards. Thats going to be good peer review, bad peer review, and intentionally bad peer review. You comment about journals selecting the peer reviewers adds no comfort. There is a huge incentive to some of the biggest most colorful journals to be sensationalist. There are motives to be sensationalist if the journal is run by an organization that promotes science. Anybody making money on science shouldn’t have the ability to select peer reviewers with zero enforceable standards. If you want science to be credible like your doctor or your accountant you have to develop a system like those professions did to instill confidence by the general public. Peer review we have in science was designed to do one thing and one thing only. . . .protect the reputation of journal to maintain its dues paying constituency. . . .so pretty much anything goes that can’t be proven to be false in the near short run.
In regards to your comment about no peer review, well if you want it you should provide it whether its for your own piece of mind or even if you want to try to be the guardian of the public trust.
“anything and everything is going to happen in the absence of enforceable standards”
And yet you guys insist that there should be no standards at all by completely removing the peer-review process, thereby allowing the likes of this “paper” into the literature horde.
Des, please stop trolling.
Chic,
What do you do when you have no argument against math or physics? You cite “authority.” Time has a way of relegating “authority” to its rightful place.
That’s right. Appealing to authority is a version of science by consensus. It doesn’t work like that.
stephen…”Time has a way of relegating authority to its rightful place”.
To bad it takes so long to right the ship at times.
GR,
That’s what leftists count on. If it doesn’t work out they move on to the next crisis. It is all about advancing the agenda.
“Leftisits”
The political shimmmy is as abad as citing authority. God this crap is old and obvious.
Expertise. That’s the concept you are blind to. If you don’t know why that concept is different to ‘authority’, then you are lost forever. Discernment has zero value, for you.
“Expertise”
That reminds me of another thing that leftish*ts are good at. Changing names to hide the real agenda.
The fact is an appeal to someone’s expertise is just as useless as an appeal to authority. It doesn’t make their argument right or justify their conclusion.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412
‘The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters’
Probably worth a read..
And the inevitable result of the demise of expertise:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/lysol-manufacturer-warns-against-internal-use-after-trump-comments-n1191586
Highlighting the difference between authority and expertise and that we shouldnt mix those up.
Could Lysol cure the King of Obfuscation of Trump derangement syndrome?
Chic Bowdrie says:
April 24, 2020 at 10:32 AM
Expertise
That reminds me of another thing that leftish*ts are good at. Changing names to hide the real agenda.
The fact is an appeal to someones expertise is just as useless as an appeal to authority. It doesnt make their argument right or justify their conclusion.
———————
Good shot Chic! Fact is experts always agree right? LMAO! I don’t think I have ever seen all experts agree except on trivial or well established in empirical science areas. Some morons will no doubt confound other stuff as a consensus agreement of experts when it just flat doesn’t exist. Ever consider getting a second or third opinion? Often not very helpful because even experts become blind devotees at the same rate or very close to the same rate as everybody else.
Oh, this is great. It’s like arguing with 12 year-olds.
If you dismiss expertise then you have no valid benchmark left. No one has any better learning than anyone else on any given subject, or if they do they should be ignored.
Intellectual nihilism: the bottom of the cognitive barrel.
Please keep gloating about expertise being worthless. It helps make the point that your opinions are vacuous.
All the money you’ve saved on dental bills by fixing your kids’ teeth yourself. All the medical bills saved by setting broken limbs, taking out tonsils and performing operations at home. Who needs experts?
We all need experts that we can enter into a contract with for faithful services. Without such a contract in most likelihood the expert is providing faithful services either for himself or whoever may be contracting with him. You will have a broken leg and he will set somebody else’s leg.
‘Contract?’ What are you blathering on about?
When you want opinion on shortness of breath and shooting pains down your arm, you don’t visit a dentist, or a plumber or your next door neighbour who has been into ayurvedic medicine for years. You don’t need a contract to seek out expertise. You don’t ask to see the curriculum vitae of the cardiologist your GP refers you to, because there is an embedded framework of education and legal obligation that gives you trust in the advice you get. You can even seek out other cardiologists for second, third and tenth opinion, for which you, bill, have never, and will never tender a contract for the advice or the treatment.
We defer to expertise on a near-daily basis. You’re being argumentative and silly. Leave it.
barry says: ‘Contract?’ What are you blathering on about?
You don’t ask to see the curriculum vitae of the cardiologist your GP refers you to, because there is an embedded framework of education and legal obligation that gives you trust in the advice you get. You can even seek out other cardiologists for second, third and tenth opinion, for which you, bill, have never, and will never tender a contract for the advice or the treatment.
We defer to expertise on a near-daily basis. You’re being argumentative and silly. Leave it.
————————
You said it in your response Barry “education AND legal obligation” thats the contract. Fiduciary duty is a contract mandated by law for certain activities. Various professions have legally-binding contracts to provide good advice, do no harm, etc. These contracts became legally required because of massive scamming. The medicine show is a manifestation of mankind’s innate greed. On science you are like a babe in the woods getting molested for your lunch money in a protection racket. And they have you so fired up for the need of protection you run around forums effectively advertising the racket. Do you need to be reminded Kerry Emanuel imploring his dear friend Richard Lindzen to go along because it would be good for science. For God’s sake Emanuel is a scientist. If he were a professional in a trade that had legally mandated contractural obligations he would be arrested for running some gypsy medicine show and convicted by his own words. He was setting the standards of the profession not for the public but for the good of science. . . .himself.
Its like above where I explain that you need to expand your thinking outside of the box to conclude all the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to anthropogenic emissions. How is that sold via the protection racket? Its sold on the pure speculation that carbon sinks are static. We know they are not the biosphere has exploded in response to more available CO2. A whole new continent is the estimate of its size. These are temporary sinks but its going to be there as long as the greening is there. Also its not all temporary much biological matter ends up in ocean bottom deposits entering a permanent sink. Science has no idea of its size and dimensions, we don’t do science at the bottom of the ocean any where near a scale to answer the question. Until then some racket wants to molest you for your lunch money under the “color” of expertise. I am an advocate for more ocean bottom science. . . .but when you have a racket all the mob bosses want vigorish and a racket run off ignorance of the bottom of the ocean ensures we stay ignorant about the matter, and claims the science is settled to protect the goose that lays the golden egg.
Doctors don’t do that kind of bullshit. Why? Because of the legally mandated contract they operate under where the penalty is the loss of your license to practice or worse. Imagine your family doctor imploring your heart specialist to give you a quadruple bypass surgery for the good of the medical profession. After all they can even make your nose look like Tom Cruise’s, or make your wife’s boobs bigger, so why not experimental surgery to make your heart bigger too so you can run further? After all all those extra bucks will be good for the medical profession and help medicine advance.
I am not condemning scientists here, they are just ordinary people who have worked hard to get where they are at. In our hierarchical society it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the entire barrel.
Now I even know what your response is as the human mind is very flexible. You are going to say that gee science isn’t that evil or that stupid. There is a lot of good intuition that the CO2 is coming from mankind. And I don’t disagree thats probably the case. But that takes us to the next decision point before starting up the shakedown racket. Say you go to the doctor and he notices your biceps are bigger. And he says gee thats not good it implies more blood vessels and more blood and mass, thats going to put strain on your heart. So we should operate to remove some of that excess mass on your arms. thats a win win right? Its good for the medical profession and gee its good for you too right? Yes we rely on doctors for our health and its good thing we have contracts with them. It isn’t perfect, I find doctors all the time offering “improved life style” enhancements that aren’t necessarily so good for you but definitely good for him. To bring this out doesn’t take much at all, mention a minor complaint that you bring up out of your own ignorance and fear that it might be related to something more serious and bingo you get a prescription to make your life better. Never mind the doctor knows its not a complaint to take as life threatening he just seizes the opening like a drug dealer and sells you something. Mothers little helpers, diet pills, pills to make you piss across the room, it goes on and on. And they do until the government cracks down on them. Those are just facts of life.
Sure, we should all defer to expertise. Just not when it comes to science.
Appeals to expertise gone wild.
Chic’The fact is an appeal to someones expertise is just as useless as an appeal to authority. It doesnt make their argument right or justify their conclusion.”
This is, of course, utterly ridiculous. It is quite useful.
Does Chic really believe that an expert and a non-expert are equally likely to be right?
We all use expertise everyday, even Chic, to assign probability of correctness to people’s opinions.
That is human nature, and it has a good track record.
Given any important issue, like your child’s health, the expertise behind an opinion will be given great weight.
Or like a jury deciding guilt or innocence of a defendant, the expertise of the witnesses matters a great deal.
Hence the name ‘expert witnesses’.
The ‘derangement’ comes when govt leaders and their media mouthpieces are ENABLING the confusion between authority and expertise:
https://apnews.com/432a37435f28015e8b45eeff710cd254
which leads to this:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-poison-control-calls-for-bleach-lysol-double-after-trump-disinfectant-comment/2389593/
Nate says:
ChicThe fact is an appeal to someones expertise is just as useless as an appeal to authority. It doesnt make their argument right or justify their conclusion.
This is, of course, utterly ridiculous. It is quite useful.
Does Chic really believe that an expert and a non-expert are equally likely to be right?
We all use expertise everyday, even Chic, to assign probability of correctness to peoples opinions.
That is human nature, and it has a good track record.
Given any important issue, like your childs health, the expertise behind an opinion will be given great weight.
———————–
Bad analogy. The medical profession lives under a threat of liability, both criminal and civil for their work to meet certain standards.
Before that was the case people wisely chose loved ones to care for them as visiting a doctor could end up with all your blood on the floor and the doctor making a bit of lunch money selling your cadaver.
‘The medical profession lives under a threat of liability’
Red herring.
‘the expertise behind an opinion will be given great weight’ by people needing treatment, regardless.
Nate says: The medical profession lives under a threat of liability
Red herring.
the expertise behind an opinion will be given great weight by people needing treatment, regardless.
————————–
Aha you have now trod into the area of one of my greatest pet peeves.
People trust experts because they have been trained to trust experts. One must study his history carefully to avoid reliving it. Doctors back in history truly earned the name “witch doctor” and trust never developed and instead it was tar, feather, and rail that sent wannabee doctors apacking.
You may be too young, too naive, and too stupid to learn from the past. We most definitely don’t want to go back to those days of mistrust. And it doesn’t take too many witch doctors to grow mistrust.
I am an advocate for science. I have found myself virtually alone advocating for science among those who have been harmed by bad advice from so-called experts. The mistrust is palpable. Rebuilding trust very difficult.
I would like to avoid going that route. People who have no bad experiences like yourself at the drop of a hat bring up your doctor and your clinic. Thats because the profession has policed itself and rid itself of the bad apples. Some thing has occurred in the financial audit trade. Engineers have earned respect.
But you at the drop of the hat are ready to trust any expert even one that does not operate in a closely self policed profession that protects against speculation and insists on proofs before a product is allowed to be sold to the public. The politicization of science is extremely divisive and dangerous.
No, people defer to experts instead of non experts because that way of operating greatly increases the chances of success.
I can’t believe I’m having to state this. It’s so blindingly obvious I can’t understand the mind of a person who would seek to deny it.
This conversation began when the peer-review standard was raised as a minimum bar to entertain an interest in scientific opinion.
It had nothing to do with believing that expert opinion or deferring to it. This was the red herring bill introduced.
If you want to label what is going on, it is an ‘appeal to high standards of critical thinking.’ That is NOT a fallacy. It’s proper skepticism.
That some people can’t distinguish between authority and expertise is not in the least surprising. [GOSUB paragraph 4]
barry says:
No, people defer to experts instead of non experts because that way of operating greatly increases the chances of success.
I can’t believe I’m having to state this. It’s so blindingly obvious I can’t understand the mind of a person who would seek to deny it.
————-
You are absolutely right Barry, but you haven’t begun to complete the entire thought.
People recognized the advantages of relying upon experts and to actually realize that they realized they needed to establish legal standards of behavior, government licensing to provide a nexus to those legal standards, then it began to work with consistency.
They would not have needed to go through all those extra steps to ensure the credibility, fidelity, and accountability of experts if it were not a necessary step to ensure you actually got expert advice from an expert.
Continuing with Bill’s legal argument, Nate said earlier, “Or like a jury deciding guilt or innocence of a defendant, the expertise of the witnesses matters a great deal.”
But an expert witness is not a eye-witness. Of course expertise is better than no expertise, barry, But science doesn’t work by consensus which is essentially trial by jury. Which is why appeals to authority are called logical fallacies. I put appeals to expertise in the same category. Also papers that you cite without explaining your argument before using the citations as evidence.
You’re right. Consensus is not how science works. Consensus is the result of science. It is the manifestation of the abundance and consilience of evidence. It is that which best matches reality.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says: You’re right. Consensus is not how science works. Consensus is the result of science. It is the manifestation of the abundance and consilience of evidence. It is that which best matches reality.
————–
A consensus of experts is basically what is science. when there is a significant lack of universal consensus among experts the science isn’t quite ready. . . .as was stated by Roger Revelle and others.
Further, for science to be relevant to policy one most look at all the costs and benefits. Selectively looking for problems might be science, is popular science, is yellow journalism like science, but its not good stuff to form policy around without a balanced view of all the effects.
For example I think additional CO2 is good for live on this earth in an obvious and measurable way right now where no real debate exists as to their being real benefits. One must weigh losing those benefits to gain some precaution about a whole lot of things not projected rationally to occur for generations. Sure everybody is blaming every hurricane, every brush fire, deformed crab larvae on CO2 emissions but that’s all science not ready yet/
Finally policy making has nothing to do with science. Science merely informs policy making. In a democratic society each individual weighs the evidence the costs and benefits in a personal way. There is no way for scientists to weigh that so its not a job for science to decide on policy. A scientist recommending policy is simply somebody stating his own desires and wishes that he would rather have this vs that just like everybody else.
“Further, for science to be relevant to policy one most look at all the costs and benefits. Selectively looking for problems might be science, is popular science, is yellow journalism like science, but its not good stuff to form policy around without a balanced view of all the effects.”
Nature doesnt need to align with your policy goals.
Again Bill, mixing policy agendas in with your analysis of science is never a good idea, whether from the right or the left.
Just as I don’t expect to get unbiased analysis of the science from Greenpeace, we are learning not to get unbiased appraisal of the science from you and your fellow travelers, like the Heartland Institute.
“No, people defer to experts instead of non experts because that way of operating greatly increases the chances of success.
I cant believe Im having to state this. Its so blindingly obvious I cant understand the mind of a person who would seek to deny it.”
Indeed so.
But these guys have their trusted authorities and ‘experts’ like Berry and Salby that they worship.
While there demonstrated track record and expertise on the carbon cycle, or ocean chemistry, is low to non-existent, it gets multiplied by a factor proportional to their anti-establishment credentials.
IOW, these guys are like 1960s hippies, worshiping anti-establishment ‘experts’ who advocated doing lots of drugs to gain enlightenment, over doing work to earn a living.
Nate says:
Nature doesnt need to align with your policy goals.
————————-
It doesn’t? Why? If we can control nature we should align to our goals. In fact we already do that. We go out create products and create artificial habitats for ourselves called homes. We kill food and stick in the freezer or refrigerator rather than let nature rot in place on the ground. Do you do any of that stuff or do you still live in a cave munching on berries?
Nate says:
Again Bill, mixing policy agendas in with your analysis of science is never a good idea, whether from the right or the left.
—————–
My policy agenda is to do whatever is best for mankind. You think I shouldn’t at least request that science and economics provide me with relevant information they have before so I consider those things before implementing the agenda?
I am calling this my-expert-is-bigger-than-your-expert pissing contest a draw. It reminds this 60’s hippie of the tic-tac-toe War Games movie.
oute. PeoplBill,
” Thats because the profession has policed itself and rid itself of the bad apples. Some thing has occurred in the financial audit trade. Engineers have earned respect.”
Thats fair enough.
Science is different in some ways from this. Each paper that a scientist publishes doesnt have to be correct. This ecourages people to publish novel ideas.
But it is self regulating. There is peer review. There are prior known facts and laws that should not be ignored. There is replication that is essential for new science to be accepted. Finally there is usefullness in its application.
Nate says:
Thats fair enough.
Science is different in some ways from this. Each paper that a scientist publishes doesnt have to be correct. This ecourages people to publish novel ideas.
But it is self regulating. There is peer review. There are prior known facts and laws that should not be ignored. There is replication that is essential for new science to be accepted. Finally there is usefullness in its application.
———————-
I agree. Science is self regulating for the purposes of the scientific community. They aren’t regulated for the purposes of providing services and advice to a far less knowledgeable public.
Science in policy is a relatively new thing. Legally it only applies to regulatory bodies and not legislative bodies. And how well it does with regulatory bodies goes from very good to pretty awful. The US civil service has the best record as they have independence rules and career non-appointed managers very knowledgeable of the expert areas they manage. So that provides a good deal of insulation from political and personal interest influence.
There are many examples of how science works through political processes some a lot better than others. Much of it is in the process design and the roles assumed between outside experts and career professionals. I have strong opinions on the best ways to approach that having spent perhaps half my time over the past 33 years working as an independent expert government consultant. I have pretty much seen all sides of the issue working to provide straight up consulting for the government to doing peer review consulting for the government overseeing other experts. Been trying to retire for years but keep getting calls so I still work part time at it.
‘They arent regulated for the purposes of providing services and advice to a far less knowledgeable public.’
Well they have codes of ethics. As do journals. If data is shown to be fraudulent, papers are retracted. If scientists commit fraud (as Salby did) they can get fired. Increasingly, raw data has to be made available.
And if you personally select your friends to pal-review your publication like what Harde did then you get a commentary officially linked to the publication explaining the situation.
Nate says: – Well they have codes of ethics. As do journals. If data is shown to be fraudulent, papers are retracted. If scientists commit fraud (as Salby did) they can get fired. Increasingly, raw data has to be made available.
——————–
Fraud occurs. Others have discovered it. I have a lot of experience in review of documentation in the policy arena with both biological sciences and economics being reviewed. I am not there to do the biological review. Others fill that role. But I am there to ask questions relevant to biological issues and as both biological issues and policy have economic impacts. There are economic impacts of not doing policy so the review processes are an attempt reconcile the costs and benefits between doing something and not doing something. I have been in a lot of meetings doing that. But I nor anybody else in the room with me discovered fraud nor did I ever hear of fraud being found later.
So my take is scientists who invest a lot in their skills aren’t going to commit fraud via deliberate falsification of data. Its happened but its very rare. I won’t go into long stories about where problems do arise, but when I read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear his take was very recognizable to me. His book is a story of criminal acts but its not a story about criminal acts by scientists.
I comparison to my trade which I was licensed for, now retired from offering public services and anybody in it even remotely familiar with what is stated and how its stated in many science reports would quickly recognize that the statements often are not a result of the work in the paper, which in public papers, my profession with universal liability for those statements should it cause anybody financial harm would never be stated. Thats not fraud that just a lack of discipline and standards.
bdgwx says: – And if you personally select your friends to pal-review your publication like what Harde did then you get a commentary officially linked to the publication explaining the situation.
———————
Actually that is a protection that doesn’t impress me. Way too loosey goosey. The peer review process used by publications provide no assurance to the public they provide assurance to the publication. If you actually put together a workshop of what protections the public wants you would get an earful of stuff that the publications aren’t concerned about. Publications aren’t concerned about scientifically unsupported statements. Thats because they know how to read a study and understand both what the study found and what it didn’t find without the author telling them.
We are having a discussion about the Berry model and folks need to understand that its a proxy that has uncertainty about what its alleged to be a proxy for. Its not a valid proxy because the scientists that worked on it and are interested in it. Its an indicator of a potential answer.
“Michael Crichtons State of Fear his take was very recognizable to me.”
Makes sense. When i first saw Andromena Strain, it was quite intense and realistic. Well done.
But his books, which are entertaining fiction BTW, are always about scientists run amok, screwing things up. That was his niche.
Nate says: – But his books, which are entertaining fiction BTW, are always about scientists run amok, screwing things up. That was his niche.
————————-
Then obviously you haven’t read State of Fear as its not about scientists running amok. The scientists in this story act like everybody else including you and me.
dan…”Analysis using data from Quantum Mechanics calculations by Hitran reveals that water vapor increase has caused about 10 times more ground level warming than CO2 increase”.
10 x nothing is still nothing. I have read a lot of your comments and in general I appreciate your scientific approach. However, you have still not convinced me that atmospheric or surface waring due to WV is any more significant than CO2.
Looking at your graph, the y-axis is in milliwatts. Even integrated over the window you show it doesn’t amount to any more than 5% of the claimed surface emissions.
I don’t buy that type of graph anyway. It’s a model based on someone’s imagination.
How do you explain wv causing warming of any significance? Certainly, if you were talking about wv convection in the tropics, it might add to the N2/O2 heated by the surface, but in no greater proportion that its mass percent.
If you are talking about wv blocking IR from the surface, the air temrature created by the N2/O2 ratio at 99% is still the governing factor for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It would be the temperature of N2/O2 that governed the rate of radiation from the surface.
GR,
“10 x nothing is still nothing” CO2 is a ghg so its contribution to warming at ground level is not zero. The added CO2 actually provides more cooling in the stratosphere which compensates for the small warming at ground level resulting in a net effect for CO2 of about zero. The point of the 10 x calculation is to point out the importance of the increasing WV.
“doesn’t amount to any more than 5%” Realize that this is per m2/cm-1 so you get about 260*(1250-750) = 130,000 mw/m2 =130 W/m2 through the window. The area under the black trace on Fig 1 is about 300 W/m2 so about 130/300 = 43% gets through the window (for this latitude. It is a lot less where it is colder).
“based on someone’s imagination” Not at all. Figure 10 is similar. The squiggly line is generated by Modtran. Modtran has been verified by actual measurements from satellite e.g. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html . The BB curves are, of course, calculated from Planck’s law. Some of the comments and other stuff have been added by me.
“…explain wv causing warming…” WV is a ghg. The misleadingly named greenhouse effect of water vapor from the oceans and other natural sources increased the average surface temperature by about 33 C° (above the no-ghg temperature) making the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. Increased WV from irrigation (crops, lawns, golf courses, etc.) and artificial water bodies (gradually for hundreds of years but mostly since about 1950) has added another half degree or so.
“…wv blocking IR from the surface,…” The term ‘blocking’ is misleading. The energy flux is only slowed. It is often discussed as though the radiation from N2/O2 is zero which is also a bit misleading. Measurement of radiation from O2 is processed to get the temperatures reported by UAH here. This radiation flux is orders of magnitude less than that from ghg like WV and CO2 and is not a significant contributor to temperature. That is where thermalization and reverse thermalization matter. Energy absorbed by ghg molecules is shared with N2/O2 molecules warming them via gas phase thermal conduction. The reverse happens when ghg molecules radiate. So N2/O2 molecules themselves don’t significantly absorb/radiate, instead they conduct from and to the ghg molecules that do. BB radiation sets only the upper limit for radiation from gasses.
dan…”The energy flux is only slowed”.
Dan…no disrespect intended. I enjoy your analysis even though we have to agree to disagree at times.
I have dealt with energy flux in my career in electronics with regard to the transmission of EM through the atmosphere. You can block it with a metal shield but I know of know way to slow it down.
Furthermore, I am well-versed in electron theory since electrons are the basis of my career. I know of no way to slow down the rate of their radiation without changing the temperature of the environment into which they emit.
Obviously, if the environment has the same temperature of the atoms in which the electrons reside, the electrons will radiate at a far different rate than if the temperature difference is negative 30C. Also, if the environmental temperature is greater than the atomic mass, the electrons will begin absorbing energy rather than emitting it.
I’d like to know more about how that works but I cannot see the trace amounts of CO2 and WV having much to do with it since they don’t determine the temperature of the atmosphere. I’m going on the Ideal Gas Law where in a constant volume the temperature is due to the gases with the highest mass percent.
GR,
Perhaps the concept of relaxation time for a molecule is not clear. First, realize that the atmosphere, at the scale of atoms consists of molecules bouncing off each other in empty space. The flow of heat energy (IR at earth temperatures) when there are ghg molecules present is not like radio, radar, etc. Instead, when a ghg molecule absorbs a photon, a bit of time passes (on average) before it emits one. For that bit of time, called the relaxation time, that bit of energy is stalled. The relaxation time is a few microseconds at 288 K and is longer at lower temperature. Of course, when the molecule emits a photon, the photon travels at the speed of light because it is EM. However, the average speed of the energy would be the total distance traveled divided by the sum of the time at the speed of light plus the sum of the relaxation times of all the molecules encountered. The time elapsed for the energy packet to get from the surface to the TOA is obviously several orders of magnitude longer than it would take a radio wave. This combination of tortuous path and multiple relaxation times is summarized with the statement that the energy flux is slowed.
A calculation of the time it takes for energy to make the trip is made here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.01932.pdf (I have no comment on this).
The CO2 and WV molecules, by absorbing IR energy from the ground and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules, contribute to adding energy to the atmosphere along with convective heat transfer and latent heat. Fig 1 in http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com still looks pretty good as an overall energy balance. At TOA the IR radiation is essentially all from WV and CO2 (except for that which zips through the atmospheric window at light speed). Fig 0.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com is a visual aid approximating how energy moves in the atmosphere.
The average molecule energy level of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution exhibits as the temperature of the gas but IMO that gets a little deeper than necessary to understand climate.
Interesting
“Liquid water has a vapor pressure which depends ONLY on the temperature of the liquid water. The relation is available from multiple sources.”
You should have stopped there, because there is no way to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere without increasing the temperature.
You can pump all the water vapor you want into the atmosphere, it just will condense out, and not cause any warming.
H2O is not the control knob.
Bob,
What you are saying would be true if the atmosphere was saturated, i.e. 100% relative humidity throughout, but of course, it is not. Global average is about 70% RH but common sense observation demonstrates that RH is less than 100% in most places most of the time. At 100% RH swamp coolers wouldn’t work, misters wouldn’t work and you wouldn’t feel a chill when you emerged from swimming. I have felt a chill coming out of a pool when air temperature was 115 °F because local RH was single digit.
Perhaps you got that idea from the EPA. It is at best a colossal mistake on their part. I discuss this and other EPA mistakes in Section 3 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Total precipitable water (TPW) i.e. water vapor, is measured using satellite based instrumentation by NASA/RSS and numerical anomalies are reported monthly. Data through March, 2020 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202003.time_series.txt and will be until about 10 May. They change the link every month so after that you will need to change the last digit from 3 to 4. Their home page is at
http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product
TPW anomaly with reference value of 28.73 added is graphed here thru Feb 2020: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HXX9IJkJWHYZkjyEH85oen3-CXTNEcID
UAH, RSS, NOAA, GISS & Hadley all report that average global temperature has been increasing. The higher temperature increases the vapor pressure of liquid water and higher vapor pressure means more WV in the atmosphere. Measured WV (TPW) is compared with WV increase calculated from UAH temperatures at https://drive.google.com/open?id=103oZtgHRtTsf12ybW-Ucn2gS8Qdbq9Yd which includes a live link to a paper containing the method.
Dan,
All it has to be is saturated somewhere at some time, which it is of course.
Common sense tells us that it is raining right now right outside my window.
Water vapor is going up because CO2 is warming the planet.
It is hard to believe that anyone does not know better than this All it has to be is saturated somewhere at some time Perhaps you dont understand how evaporative coolers work. Apparently you also reject the NASA/RSS measurements of TPW (links at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-462407 ). Its unlikely that you know more about measuring WV than they do. The trend increase of WV from their measurements is corroborated by NCEP R1 and NCEP R2.
You (and a lot of others) have been falsely indoctrinated. CO2 has had no significant effect on the temperature of the planet. The lack of influence of CO2 on climate is corroborated by multiple compelling evidence listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com .
Calculation of the WV increase resulting from the temperature increase of liquid water is straight forward and is presented in Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . Each of all available average global temperature measurements calculates a WV increase LESS THAN actually measured. The fact that measured WV has increased faster than possible from temperature increase demonstrates that WV increase is driven by something else.
Unfortunately you appear to be exhibiting what Mark Twain observed, Its easier to fool someone than convince them theyve been fooled!
Perhaps it is you who does not understand why swamp coolers don’t work except in regions of low humidity. The water vapor condenses on them almost as fast as it evaporates in regions of high humidity.
Try this, take an electronic device that can measure relative humidity, take a reading in your house, and then fill your house with about a foot of water and see if the humidity goes up.
The scoop is that humidity is determined by temperature and not by the amount of liquid water that is available to evaporate, and since the earth is about 3/4 covered with water, the amount of irrigation applied to the other 1/4 just won’t make a difference.
You have been fooled.
Bob,
This statement is revealing “The water vapor condenses on them almost as fast as it evaporates in regions of high humidity.”
It is also not credible that you would think everyone has gotten the measurement of the increasing trend of WV wrong.
What makes more sense is that you are not actually as ignorant as you appear and are just yanking my chain for your entertainment. Expect to be ignored in the future.
I have done my own research to avoid being fooled by others and challenge my own work to guard against fooling myself.
It may not be as revealing as you think.
Dan,
Where have I ever implied or even said that I think the water vapor trends are not up?
this is what you say
It is also not credible that you would think everyone has gotten the measurement of the increasing trend of WV wrong.
I don’t think they have that wrong. I never said that.
Bottom line, is prove you can increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere without heating it.
My position is that you can’t.
You need to add energy to the water to evaporate the water, just spraying it on the ground, ie, irrigation won’t do it.
That is freshman chemistry. Phase transitions require the addition of energy.
Grew up in a Small UK village where coal was burned in fireplaces for heating and as a supply of hot water. No respiratory problems, and I have heard of none in larger cities where smog from coal fires were far more dense. Heck, in the UK, I would imagine most respiratory problems came from smoking cigarettes.
No respiratory problems …only brain damage it seems.
nurse ratchet, please stop trolling.
adelaida…”Rather what I want to ask is if the increase in global temperature (wherever it comes from) is the primary catalyst responsible for acidifying the ocean ”
There is a constant cycle of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. CO2 enters colder water and leaves (outgassed) from warmer water. Furthermore, a good portion of CO2 is cycled from swamps to the atmosphere and back to vegetation. Much more than the 4% contributed by humans.
I think ocean acidification is another alarmist thought experiment. They have no proof since the oceans are vast, making up 70% of the planets surface area. How would you measure it? If you did measure it, what would you compare it to?
And what does global temperature mean? For surface stations, it is a mathematical average based largely on two temperature measurements a day in different locations in the world. NOAA, which collects most of the surface readings has admitted they have less than 1500 stations covering the surface area. The oceans are covered by questionable means such as ships measuring the ocean temperature at water intakes and buoys floating in the ocean.
NOAA fudges the global temperature using climate models and by dividing the planet into 5 degree x 5 degree sectors. They have no measuring devices in most of those sectors so they average the temperatures in most areas using temperatures from nearby areas. On land, those nearby areas can be 1200 miles away and on the ocean, who knows how far away?
The best coverage by far is by satellites but the sats reveal that temperatures vary wildly around the planet. So, how can you average wildly fluctuating temperatures to get one number? What does it mean? The sats also reveal hot spots in the Arctic that move around month to month.
Gordon Robertson says:
Kriging.
Energy imbalance.
GR are you ok? You have been repeating this nonsense for ages and ages. Do you not remember? If you do, why go on and on and on and on with the same rubbish? Repetition does not make it true.
I can help explain GR’s condition:
Palilalia (from the Greek πάλιν (plin) meaning “again” and λαλιά (lali) meaning “speech” or “to talk”), a complex tic, is a language disorder characterized by the involuntary repetition of syllables, words, or phrases.
nurse…”I can help explain GRs condition:”
Nurse, you’re wearing your garter belt too high. It’s squeezing your chest, constricting your heart and cutting off oxygen to what there is of your brain.
studentb…”GR are you ok? You have been repeating this nonsense for ages and ages”.
Adelaida is new and asked for input.
Just wondering, have you heard of the scientific method or do you subscribe to modern pseudo-science where consensus and ego has replaced the scientific method?
The AAO index drops. It promises to be a dry and cold winter in southern Australia.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
See renny boy how the index has changed sign 12 times in the past 4 months. What evidence do you have that it won’t keep doing so over the next 4 months? Guesswork?
I predict, I do not guess.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/500gz_anomalies_sh.gif
You mean the way you predicted that winter 2019-20 in the US would be bitterly cold? How did that turn out for you?
(Let me make my own prediction: you will now pretend that a single cold week in April somehow cancels out 4.5 months of warm weather that preceded it.)
Perhaps you also mean the way you predicted that we would have a La Nina in 2018-19, when we instead got an El Nino.
Your predictions are coin-tosses at best.
A coin toss would be better than the GCMs. Their predictions have all been wrongand are getting worse.
You mean how they predicted it would warm and it has indeed warmed?
Haha – they just don’t get it do they? With regard to global temperature, only one prediction has been made – that the long-term trend will be upwards.
These people want to throw in all kinds of distractors such as cold months in one part of the world, a ‘pause’ that is long over, and downward “trends” after strong El Ninos, while the long-term trend continues to plod inexorably upward.
midas…”You mean the way you predicted that winter 2019-20 in the US would be bitterly cold? ”
It was relatively bitterly cold here on Canada’s west coast where it is normally moderate in winter. We set records for cold.
dan…”A coin toss would be better than the GCMs. Their predictions have all been wrongand are getting worse”.
It gets worse. They are now using unvalidated models to predict the activity of a phantom virus. The result is the shutting down of the global economy. Like their climate counterparts they have been egregiously wrong.
midas…”a pause that is long over,”
Can you or anyone else explain how CO2 can allow an 18 year pause? It’s actually more than a 35 year pause since the satellite record showed temperatures below the baseline for 17 years.
According to the UAH 33 year report, ‘TRUE’ warming did not occur till the 1998 El Nino. That was also the beginning of the 18 year pause. So, the warming to which you refer began in 2016 with a super El Nino and that had been cooling till recently. It’s still possible that cooling will occur, no one knows.
All of the warming after 1998 occurred during a short unexplained burst circa 2001. Then it levelled off for 16 years.
GR
It’s funny how deniers keep referring to variability in climate (especially Yanks making comparisons to the 30s and the 70s in the US and pretending that is indicative of global climate) but expect variability to vanish when the average rises. The “pause” is what would have been a downturn before it was piggy-backed onto a rising trend.
I repeat: The only prediction is a rise in the LONG-TERM AVERAGE. There is no prediction about short-term variability about that average due to considerations which have always been present, will not be going away, and which (unlike the rising long-term trend) are entirely unpredictable over long time scales.
And there is no point addressing your Murdoch-fed BS about Covid.
Predictions of continued long term warming are quite unimpressive. Ice core records show these trends can last for millennia and perhaps average for centuries. We are now in 300 years of warming predating the industrial revolution as much as Al Gore and some of his sycophants want to politically deny that.
BTW, it appears we may have some cooling on the way. The north Pacific Ocean is beginning present a cold PDO signature and cold currents just hit here this week after a warm water winter with shoreside water temps dipping about 4C. too early to tell for sure but NWS/NCEP/CPC CFS2 ENSO model has been pointing at La Nina this coming winter for weeks. They still have to break through the spring prediction barrier though but it appears they have been in front of this based upon the progression of indicators.
Perhaps a full blown La Nina combined with the pandemic is going to move the needle being discussed here.
“We are now in 300 years of warming predating the industrial revolution”
The first two decades of the 20th century were colder than each of the 5 decades that preceded them.
Of course a La Nina will lower temperatures – while it lasts. But of course, that is NOT climate. It has absolutely nothing to do with the long-term trend, as you have found out countless times but choose to forget anew every time.
Midas says:
”The first two decades of the 20th century were colder than each of the 5 decades that preceded them.”
so are you now reversing yourself and claiming short term cooling as an interruption of long term climate change warming?
The two cold decades of the early 20th century was similar to the two cold decades of the 60’s and 70’s, similar but opposite to the three warm decades starting in the 2nd decade of the 20th century and probably the end of the 20th century as well.
I have no idea if the warming will continue over the next couple of decades or not. That because I don’t believe I understand how all that other warming and cooling occurred. Seems there are a good number of climate scientists also expressing doubt about warming in the next couple of decades too.
Regarding the 300 years of general warming, who knows? That could extend out for another century or so. I just don’t see a good connection between all that and the industrial age. It only seems to pop out that way when the horse owners put blinders on the horses so they won’t be distracted in their mission.
No mate, I am saying that there was nowhere near enough added CO2 back then to have any significant effect on climate, so the climate was free to float like a leaf in a breeze.
You seem to have the US in mind as you describe those 20th century temperatures. I hope you’re not going to try to claim that the 1930s was the warmest decade on a global scale, or even close to it.
GLOBALLY (using decadal averages), we:
. fell by 0.1 from the 1850s to the 1900s (ie.1900-1909),
. rose by 0.4 from there to the 1940s,
. fell by 0.1 to the 1970s,
. then rose by 0.6 to the 2010s.
Using 1970-74 as a start point, every half-decade has been warmer than the previous half-decade. Before that, there were 12 rises and 13 falls in the record. And the largest half-decade rise in the entire record is from 2010-14 to 2015-19.
Difficult to read all comments and difficult where to place my question. I’ll try it here:
Take a vessel with a hole in its bottom and pore in water at a constant rate of say a liter per hour. After some time you have equilibrium with the same outflow of a liter per hour and a water level of A. If you vary the inflow a, the water level A will vary proportionally. Just because in equilibrium inflow equals outflow and outflow is proportional to the water level. I hope, all can agree to that.
Now my question is: Is the same proportionality true for CO2-inflow b into the atmosphere and CO2-concentration B within the atmosphere? And if not, why not?
No, it’s the same principle but the CO2 impact is logarithmic.
svante…”No, its the same principle but the CO2 impact is logarithmic”.
According to climate model theorists.
The impact is an important but quite different question. I think we should not change the subject too early.
If it is the same principle, an increase of 5 % in CO2-inflow into the atmosphere should bring up the concentration by 5 %. And if we find an increase in concentration by 40 %, the inflow has to be increased by 40 %. Correct?
Eike,
You say inflow has increased 5%? How do you calculate that?
In any case your analogy to the Earth is too simple. The carbon cycle is not a single vessel. The flows are not all driven by pressure.
There are dynamics going on that circulate CO2 into and out of the atmosphere, such as the thermohaline circulation.
Nate, 5 % is just an example. Of course is the carbon cycle more than a single vessel. But all outflow of the atmosphere is only driven by difference in partial pressure, whatever is going on in the carbon cycle outside of the atmosphere.
And as to this point Eike:
“But all outflow of the atmosphere is only driven by difference in partial pressure, whatever is going on in the carbon cycle outside of the atmosphere.”
The partial pressure difference to the ocean is tiny, because the ocean surface pco2 closely tracks the atm pco2.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
So the outflow from atm to ocean is determined by what is going on in the carbon cycle in the ocean.
Nate is obfuscating again. Either that or he cannot see the forest for the trees. The PMEL data shows that when the pCO2 cycles up due to colder ocean temperature, the atmospheric CO2 cycles down. The reverse occurs with warmer ocean temperature. Therefore temperature changes produce significant pressure differences that cause the fluctuations.
The close tracking only indicates that both air and ocean CO2 concentrations are increasing as natural and fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere both increase. So no, the outflow from atmosphere to ocean is NOT determined by what is going on in the carbon cycle in the ocean. It is caused by the increase in emissions regardless of source.
“Take a vessel with a hole in its bottom and pore in water at a constant rate of say a liter per hour.”
Another example: the biosphere is like a second vessel. Attached to this vessel is a solar powered pump, that periodically turns on and pumps water out of your vessel into the biosphere vessel.
Then it leaks back into your vessel (both quickly from respiration and slowly from plant death and decay)
This pumped outflow is non-equilibrium, and does not satisfy your “outflow is proportional to the water level.”
Nate, I cannot see a solar powered pump that pumps water out of my vessel (or CO2 out of the atmosphere). There is only a (variable) partial pressure difference leading to diffusion of CO2 from the atmosphere to the biosphere (and to the ocean). Don’t you think, this diffusion is proportional to the partial pressure difference?
You will never get a straight answer from Nate. Even if you agree with him, he will explain why you are wrong.
“I cannot see a solar powered pump that pumps water out of my vessel (or CO2 out of the atmosphere). There is only a (variable) partial pressure difference leading to diffusion of CO2 from the atmosphere to the biosphere (and to the ocean). Don’t you think, this diffusion is proportional to the partial pressure difference?”
Yes and no.
A leaf on a tree has solar powered chemical reactions going on that eat up CO2 and convert it into carbohydrates. This leaves a very low partial pressure of CO2 inside the leaf, so of course the atmospheric CO2 flows in (nature abhors a vacuum).
But this is no different than solar-driven pumping of CO2 out of chamber, then letting the atmosphere refill it. Effectively pumping CO2 out of the atmosphere.
In any case this is a non-equilibrium dynamic process.
Same goes for the thermohaline circulation, which sends water to the arctic where it cools, abs*orbs CO2, and descends to the deep ocean. Effectively a non-equilibrium pumping process.
Still looking for a straight answer from Chic on these inconvenient facts:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-461771
You’ve shown nothing to indicate you can explain how the Bates’ paper refutes Berry and Salby models. Unlike you I don’y accept raising the Revelle factor meme as proof of anything. Unlike you I don’t accept the conclusions of the paper before I’ve investigated the methods and the data. For these reasons and the restraints of more important commitments, I am not going to answer at this time.
I won’t be answering you anyway, because I’ll get nothing but more obfuscation. No more pearls before swine for you.
Svante, I think you are referring to the radiative impact of a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration, minus any feedbacks. Changes in equilibrium concentration from changes in influx has been linear (but may taper off as the oceans become less soluble to CO2).
You’re right, I was too quick there.
eike…”Is the same proportionality true for CO2-inflow b into the atmosphere and CO2-concentration B within the atmosphere? And if not, why not?”
I don’t think anyone has the answer to your question. No one knows where 50% of anthropogenic emissions go. The theories involved have never been subjected to the scientific method. Furthermore, the system is far too large to be observed accurately.
I think 100 % of anthropogenic emissions go the same way as 100 % of any other emissions. If not, why not?
Robertson’s opinions remain untroubled by anything so banal as seeking our facts. He is a rich source of pure fabrication.
The sea and the biosphere are taking up CO2. There is decades of scientific research, observation, deduction and induction behind it.
Here are many papers on just one topic: oceanic uptake of CO2 from measurements.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/papers-on-the-ocean-carbon-sink/
Here is a paper on biosphere uptake:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1020.8664&rep=rep1&type=pdf
And another:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/39/10361.full.pdf
“…never been subjected to the scientific method…”
Uh-huh.
Near as I can tell you are just blindly posting references to uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and even any kind of CO2 (last reference) which is about how plants are becoming more drought tolerant in a richer CO2 environment. The last one has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The second one is about how the known quantity of fossil fuel generated CO2 is being sequestered in various sinks when nobody I know of is denying that humans burn fossil fuels.
The first one is just a bibliography of articles on carbon sinks. Yes we know there are carbon sinks and that some anthropogenic CO2 is going into them.
What seems to be missing in your list of convincing science is a study talking about the dynamics of the various processes that can influence how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Yes we know anthropogenic emissions are part of that mix. The question though is how much of a part.
Here is nice article on the complexities of answering that question: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
I don’t think you understood what I was posting about. It is largely contained in the one quote in my post, as well as Robertson’s line from the same post “no one knows where 50% of anthropogenic emissions go.”
Looks like you focussed on my post and ignored the conversation. I think you do this quite a lot. It’s kind of cool that others posts inspire you to carry on with whatever you’re fixated on, but I wasn’t talking to you, and you have definitely missed what was happening.
The last one is definitely on topic. Look up ‘Suess Efect’, which is the spine of the paper attempting to estimate the balance of land/ocean carbon uptake under fossil fuel burning. You don’t appear to know what you are talking about on this paper.
“your list of convincing science”
Wanker.
barry, please stop trolling.
Ever noticed that alarmistas never mention south pole sea ice ? only the arctic sea ice .
So not only their climate models use flat earth with only one side where sun shines 24/7 with 240W evenly everywhere it also has only one pole.
Anyway , to get yourself up to date on that (not) melting ice check this
https://bit.ly/2xJq25x
That’s because there is no sea ice at the south pole.
bob d….”Thats because there is no sea ice at the south pole.”
He was talking about South ‘Polar’ sea ice, obviously meaning the ice surrounding Antarctica.
What do you call the Larsen Ice Shelf, a huge chunk of sea ice, partly over the ocean, created by glaciers? When the unsupported weight gets too great, the ice breaks off and forms huge islands of ice.
What do you call the immense ice packs around Antarctica? Shackelton and his crew were able to walk across ice on the ocean to the land from their ice bounds ship.
Why can’t ships get anywhere near the Antarctic coast during winter? You guessed it, they are blocked by ice packs.
Eben was obviously referring to that ice.
I guess he was also referring to alarmistas predictions of eminent demise of the sea ice around Antarctica, which there aren’t any of those just like there isn’t any sea ice at the south pole.
Just thought it would make him refer to his sources for alarmist predictions about Antarctic sea ice, you know like double check his sources, something you never do.
blob, please stop trolling.
Yes there is.
https://tinyurl.com/y9mpsgl4
You do know where the South Pole is don’t you?
Stop being a nitwit.
Don’t be calling people names, especially if you think there is sea ice at the south pole.
Just trolling huh?
Nope, just responding to trolls.
Got any idea of what the IPCC says about the eminent decline of the Antarctic sea ice?
I would expect it to be increasing with a warmer world, at least until the South Polar ice cap melts away.
bobdroege says: ”Nope, just responding to trolls.”
Thats what all trolls think they are doing.
bd
Like you when you jumped in on this thread, right?
Oops – that comment was meant for bill hunter.
bobdroege
This kind of response does not help the climate debate. You know he meant “Antarctic” sea ice.
Well shame on me, I didn’t know Eben was debating, and I didn’t know that I was trying to help the climate debate.
Why the anger? You seem intent on arguing with anyone and everyone.
No anger, you want to argue with me, go ahead.
And the point wasn’t that he got the antarctic sea ice part wrong, it’s that he doesn’t understand or know the alarmista position on antarctic sea ice.
I don’t do circular debates with alarmist debils, one or two kicks in the head and move on,
Yeah Eben, you just spout some cow manure and run.
I’ve already corrected you – there is no need to argue.
blob, Des, please stop trolling.
Great,
The clunt is back
You are indeed. Now, please stop trolling.
No one has brought it up here for ages. No need to be partisan about it. But there was a flurry of interest a few years ago when there were some record low years after a slightly increasing long-term trend. The drop was very surprising.
Yeah, a lot of dimwits were trying to make hay out of the increase in Antarctic Sea Ice and then the drop showed they were being mislead or didn’t understand the alarmist position.
I am partisan to facts.
There is no drop in Antarctic Sea Ice other than in imaginations of your deluded mind
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2020_day_111_1981-2010.png
Looks like it’s lower than most years but not a record low and lower than any of the decadal averages.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
To a dimwit with hockey stick glasses on everything below the average line is a drop and a wagon full of melted hay
Eben, you seem to have a hard time with the concept of an average.
If something goes from above average to below average, that would be a drop, wouldn’t it?
I do think that is what has happened with the Antarctic Sea Ice.
It is also what the data shows if you use a reliable source like JAXA.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
Note the difference between 2014 and this year.
blob, please stop trolling.
People keep linking to notrickszone’s posts, which are almost always BS.
Never mind that Eben has waffled on about South Polar sea ice in his post, while linking to an article about North Polar land ice – a towering example of teh stupid…
notricks’s article features peer reviewed papers that take long term greenhouse warming for granted, as is clear in the texts. These are papers about regional circulation patterns, which do not relegate AGW to being a bit player in global climate change, despite what notricks would have you believe.
Just because papers looking at regional weather patterns and modes don’t spend much text on AGW, doesn’t mean they are subverting understanding of AGW. But notricks wants us to think they do. This is lame-brain stuff.
Here is what they actually say:
It is very likely that Antarctic sea ice cover exhibits no significant trend over the period of satellite observations (19792018). While the drivers of historical decadal variability are known with medium confidence,there is currently limited evidence and low agreement concerning causes of the strong recent decrease (20162018), and low confidence in the ability of current-generation climate models to reproduce and explain the observations. {3.2.1.1}
from here
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-3-2/
The anomalous drops of the last few years have turned a statistically significant slight positive trend prior to 2017 into a slight positive trend that lacks statistical significance.
Here is a plot of Antarctic sea ice since 1979, with a linear trend.
https://tinyurl.com/ycmlxwjj
See the trend, see the wild drop at the end.
barry, please stop trolling.
I was wondering what CO2 sectors would fall in use in the COVID19 period.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
Electricity generation for homes would not seem to be one that would suffer much. Industrial use, perhaps, but as this is considered ‘essential’ work in most countries, would there be much of a downturn?
Transportation would see a significant doownturn, I would imagine. That’s 14% of the global total of CO2 emissions. But how much? Half that amount over 2020? Seems unlikely. The agricultural sector will keep on chugging owing to the necessity and that social distancing is a less of a difficulty.
This article suggests a >1% dip in emissions globally this year.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus-causing-carbon-emissions-to-fall-but-not-for-long/
Seems reasonable. Conservative, even.
Of course, emissions could drop by 90%, and we would still have more CO2 in the atmosphere than the year before.
What this year’s economic contraction will NOT reflect is the economic response to a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. This year’s drop in CO2 emissions – if noticeable – will be a result of closing down or hugely limiting sectors of various countries’ economies for a period of time. Renewable energy is meant to replace fossil fuels, not shut down industry. There is no comparison.
after 911 I recall the world temp dropped very quickly at the time attributed to clear skies with no planes flying.
Has this occurred during the covid no fly lockdown, or has the thinking changed?
thanks
peter…”after 911 I recall the world temp dropped very quickly at the time attributed to clear skies with no planes flying”.
9/11 occurred in September 2001, just after the major El Nino of 1998. Global temps were actually on the rise in September 2001 as part of an unexplained sudden rise in the global average which seems a rebound effect from the 1998 EN spike.
There’s no way a reduction in airline traffic could affect global temps. If anything, you might notice an upward burp in the temperatures due to all the hot air emanating from politicians globally re covid19.
Gordon Robertson
Sub-surface temperature on the equatorial Pacific Ocean shows a decreasing trend. This is due to the rise of sea ice in the south. I think, according to the BOM, that La Nina conditions may already occur in August.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2020&month=04
Wow! You said “may” instead of “will”. There’s a first time for everything.
Des, please stop trolling.
Winter does not give up in the northeast US.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f036.png
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere in the north is still operating in the weather. It is divided into two smaller whirls.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/04/21/0900Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-17.49,92.34,340
Well its about time it arrived.
Des, please stop trolling.
Polish doctors are starting plasma therapy from people who have recovered from Covid-19 next week. 600 ml of plasma can be taken from one person at a time. One 200 ml dose is enough for therapy. Plasma alone (without whole blood) can be collected every two weeks. To collect plasma, you must wait two weeks after the last negative CoV-2 test.
For bdgwx:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/new-80-year-deep-ocean-temperature-dataset-compared-to-a-1d-climate-model
“My conclusion is that the observed trends in surface and deep layer temperature in global oceans correspond to low climate sensitivity, only about 50% of what the IPCC climate models produce. This is the same conclusion as Lewis & Curry did it using similar energy budget considerations, but it was applied to two different averaging periods about 100 years apart instead of (as I have) in a time-dependent forced feedback model. ”
This, which says Dr. Spencer means, interpreted qualitatively, that the ocean as a whole today (good 2019) has not warmed up as much as predicted by the IPCC models?
In other words,
Does the IPCC calculate ocean warming with climate sensitivity (global average increase in surface air temperature due to the doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere) that doubles the value of that achieved by Dr. Spencer to replicate the temperature data obtained by Cheng and the Argo buoys, even when all warming is considered anthropogenic?
And so, this minor increase in ocean temperature could justify with respect to what was expected by the IPCC, that if it were mostly a warming of natural origin, the pH of the ocean would not rise?
Is the fit truly with equilibrium climate sensitivity as basis (which takes time, as in decades, to equilibrate)?
Or is it a fit of sensitivity ‘in the moment’, which is a lower figure.
Mean equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is about 3C per doubling CO2, after the system has equilibrated with the doubling
Transient climate sensitivity (TCR) is about 1.8C in ‘real-time’ (with an annual increase of 1% of atmos CO2 concentration)
I don’t know which of these Roy’s fit is representing, but Judith Curry’s paper works with both.
adelaida…”Does the IPCC calculate ocean warming with climate sensitivity…”
No one knows what the IPCC does, they change the rules as they go along. They have a quaint habit of conducting a review with 2500 reviewers then overruling the findings of the 2500 and replacing them with the opinions of politically-appointed 50 lead authors.
Two top IPCC lead authors were caught in the Climategate email scandal. One admitted the warming had stopped as of 2009 and the other threatened to interfere with peer review by blocking papers from skeptics.
The IPCC statement that it was 90% likely humans are causing the warming did not come from the 2500 reviewers, many of whom wanted to wait and see what would develop. It came from 50 lead authors who wrote the Summary for Policymakers. The IPCC replaced the findings of the 2500 with the opinions of the 50 in the Summary.
John Christy of UAH has been a reviewer and a lead author on IPCC reviews and he has offered the opinion that those he encountered at the reviews seem to go along to get along. In English, that means they are simply trying to fit in rather than doing critical reviews.
You certainly enjoy your fiction.
Des, please stop trolling.
Thanks Barry!
It is the equilibrium climatic sensitivity (ECS):
“If we take the global OHC data from 1940-2019 (as well as the observed sea surface temperature data) at face value, and assume that the entire warming trend was man-made, what does that imply regarding to equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)?
Suppose ALL warming of the deep oceans since 1940 has been caused by humans, and that Cheng’s dataset accurately captures that. Furthermore, suppose that the HadSST sea surface temperature data set covering the same time period is also accurate, and that the RCP radiative forcing scenario used by the CMIP5 climate models also represents reality. ”
Could you send the link to the article by Judith Curry? Would be great!
Adelaida, the link is in the post you linked to, near the bottom.
I know Roy said ECS, but from that very description, I’m still not sure if ECS was the fit he was using. That text suggests he was looking only at the response within the period, which represents Transient Climate Response (1.8 C per doubling CO2 is ‘real time’), rather than the full response to the forcing over that period after the system equilibrates to it.
Apart from the labeling, I couldn’t see any methods described in that post that comport with an ECS function. It may have been done, just not enough information to determine.
I understand why you say it Barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/weak-el-nino-conditions-help-explain-recent-global-warmth
In the comments, on January 16 Barry says:
Transient climate response
The change in the global mean surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centered at the time of atmospheric CO2 doubling, in a climate model simulation in which CO2 increases at 1% yr-1 from pre-industrial. It is a measure of the strength of climate feedbacks and the timescale of ocean heat uptake.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/
If you are gauging climate sensitivity from response-at-the-time even with feedbacks then your results are more an estimate of TCR than ECS. If letting the model run on as you suggest gives afurther1.5C response, then it appears the estimate of ECS is about 3C.
But Dr. Spencer had already said:
“Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
January 14, 2020
The model uses feedback parameters, which determine ECS, not TCR. If I was to keep the RCP6 net forcing constant after 2019, then the model would equilibrate to about 1.5 deg. C warmer than in 1765 after a long period of time, say 100-200 years.”
Look at:
If It has to keep the RCP6 forcing constant….
Adelaida,
The article you originally linked is dated January 15.
If Roy commented on something January 14, could you please link to this?
Ok, I found that you are referring to comments in the previous article, where Roy replies to the same question I have here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/weak-el-nino-conditions-help-explain-recent-global-warmth/#comment-422864
Please keep reading past Roy’s comment.
Had Roy replied to my next comment I would have pointed out that the response to a doubling of CO2 with no feedbacks is 1C – which everyone (including Roy Spencer) agrees on. TCR and ECS both have feedbacks included (which is why TCR is 1.8 C/doubling), just that TCR is response at-the-time, and ECS is the response after a few decades.
I’m not saying Roy is wrong or right, just that I’m unsure if he knows the specific differences between TCR and ECS. It’s not ‘feedbacks’.
I mean, in that last comment Dr. Spencer says why not
esTCR the sensitivity that he has used in his 1D model.
And what is the problem then?
Please see my reply above.
barry, please stop trolling.
Way off topic and posted here for interested observers:
woodfortrees, a go-to online app for plotting climate-related time series, now has some COVID19 data for plotting.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
@ Nate’s post of April 21, 2020 at 2:46 PM
Sorry, but I could not find where to place my answer, so I put it here:
Nate says with respect to the exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and biosphere: “In any case this is a non-equilibrium dynamic process.” End of quotation.
Nate, I am not sure whether equilibrium or not is really important in that case, but be it as it is, I think most people anyway believe there was equilibrium prior to the industrial age and it still would be there if there where no man-made CO2-emissions.
Therefore the high concentration of CO2 within the atmosphere, some 40 % above equilibrium, cannot be generated by 5 % increased emissions. The bulk of it rather has to come from another CO2-source. Or do you have another explanation except the mere assertion of 50 % of the human emissions staying in the atmosphere?
“Therefore the high concentration of CO2 within the atmosphere, some 40 % above equilibrium, cannot be generated by 5 % increased emissions.”
I asked where u get 5%. 5% of what is the issue.
If 5 % of the amplitude of some cyclic flows driven by eg solar input, daily or seasonal, why do these set the scale? Why are these relevant to ongoing additions? Always additive.
Analogously we have large daily cyclic flows of heat into and out of the land. That cycle has no effect or relevance to the smaller daily addition of heat that comes this time of year. That small daily addition eventually warms the land from Spring to Summer.
The cyclic flows are also exchanging CO2 between fast responding reservoirs, inclu atm, ocean and land surface, and biosphere. The anthro CO2 is adding to the total in all of these. It accumulates, and only decays significantly when it sinks to the deep ocean.
“Therefore the high concentration of CO2 within the atmosphere, some 40 % above equilibrium, cannot be generated by 5 % increased emissions.”
Late to the party, but is this mistaking an annual amount with the long-term increase?
Anthro contribution is currently 5% (? think it is a little less) of total annual turnover, but this is a cumulative amount without a corresponding sink for the excess above equilibrium.
Turns out the biosphere does sink some proportion of the additional, as we see with increase in ocean concentrations of CO2. And that’s how we know that the increase is primarily anthropogenic. There’s no natural source we know losing its reservoir of carbon to the atmosphere, and the sources we do know are either gaining CO2, or are deforestation, which is primarily an anthropogenic source, too.
5% per annum.
barry,
“Anthro contribution is currently 5% (? think it is a little less) of total annual turnover, but this is a cumulative amount without a corresponding sink for the excess above equilibrium.”
You can be forgiven for being late to the party, but no cigar for being wrong about “a corresponding sink for the excess above equilibrium.” There is no equilibrium as long as there is increasing flow of CO2 into the air. And sinks are the same for any CO2 molecule (13C and 14C excepted) whether it came from fossil fuels or anywhere else.
Just because “we” don’t know of a natural source contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. How do you measure how much more CO2 is being released from crop cultivation to meet the needs of growing populations? Primarily an anthropogenic source is not data.
Why not just ocean surface temperature like Salby believes?
Are you sure Salby believes temperature only affects ocean uptake and outgassing of CO2, if that was the crux of your question? Temperature probably has an influence on decomposition as well as other factors.
I think Salby believes ocean surface temperature dominates.
Because an ocean temp rise of even 1C gives too small a boost in CO2 ~ 11 ppm, as shown here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-459875
I think we have an incomplete understanding of what is going on and it is a dynamic process.
Chic,
“And sinks are the same for any CO2 molecule (13C and 14C excepted) whether it came from fossil fuels or anywhere else.”
Absolutely. Which is why I didn’t posit that distinction in anything I wrote.
“Just because ‘we’ don’t know of a natural source contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.”
Correct. But we do know the anthropogenic source quite well, and the emissions are twice as much is needed to account for the rise.
Simple arithemtic. If antrho CO2 emissions over time are greater than the atmospheric concentration growth over time, then the biosphere is a net sink, and the rise is entirely from anthro emissions.
There’s no way around that which doesn’t involve some ridiculous convolutions.
Thats an overly simplified analysis. Lets say natural 80 and anthro is 5. Natural increases by 20 and concentration goes up by 2.
Redo the problem and show your work.
The increase in the atmosphere is less than the anthropogenic output. 4ppm annually from humans, but 2ppm atmospheric increase annually.
If the biosphere was adding to the total, then the increase would be the anthro contriobution of 4ppm yearly, plus whatever natural, annual addition.
But the annual increase is less than the anthro output, year after year after year. So the biosphere has to be a net sink for the excess.
It is incredibly simple and obvious. Pure arithmetic. Occam has thumbs up on it.
Rejecting it requires some very contorted convolution. Occam won’t be impressed.
In order to apply Occam’s razor to this argument you need to have a simple basis in science as a starting point.
My example, suggests a responsive system. Inject carbon and shit happens. Life is fertilized and carbon sinks are enjoying rich precipitation. Nothing unreal about that. The question is the quantities and the assumption of stasis is totally ignorant.
Thus its not a matter of absolute values but percentages of absolute values. If concentration goes up 50% perhaps that invokes at rate of 90% of that being sequestered.
If the 90% is correct then 4ppm input results in .4ppm staying in the atmosphere. So if thats the case, then the other 1.6ppm must have come from a natural input of 16ppm.
If you chop away at that with Occam’s razor you are not doing science. . . .heck why not being caused by God’s plan? Thats really simple no figures nothing!
Occam’s Razor is designed to cut out complete complex fabrications when no evidence exists the fabrication is real. Yet we know beyond any doubt that CO2 fertilizes and accelerates life. And we know beyond any doubt that life precipitates to the grave and mineral deposits and fossils. The only question is quantities. You can’t properly use Occam’s Razor to remove known uncertainty.
Bill ‘my example suggests a responsive system’
‘If concentration goes up 50% perhaps that invokes at rate of 90% of that being sequestered.’
Perhaps some ‘groundtruthing’ should be applied to these speculations before offering them up as ‘evidence’.
Nate says: If concentration goes up 50% perhaps that invokes at rate of 90% of that being sequestered.
Perhaps some groundtruthing should be applied to these speculations before offering them up as evidence.
———————–
The words “lets say” should have given you a catchable clue that it wasn’t being offered as evidence you moron!
And why would you want me to do that even if I were offering as evidence? So you could have a clear field to offer up evidence thats totally being discredited and out of date?
Chic,
“And sinks are the same for any CO2 molecule (13C and 14C excepted) whether it came from fossil fuels or anywhere else.”
Absolutely.
“Just because ‘we’ don’t know of a natural source contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.”
Yes. But now we are in the realm of pure speculation.
Simple arithemtic. If antrho CO2 emissions over time are greater than the atmospheric concentration growth over time, then the biosphere is a net sink, and the rise is entirely from anthro emissions.
There’s no way around that which doesn’t involve some far-fetched and purely theoretical convolutions.
Actually it is calculus, not arithmetic, that fools you. You need to catch up.
It does not take far-fetched notions to see that if any of the growth in CO2 comes from an increase in natural emissions, then the rise cannot be entirely anthropogenic. It is a purely theoretical convolution to think otherwise.
While you are catching up, remember that a scientist’s goal should be to seek the truth and not push an agenda designed to curtail human flourishing.
“remember that a scientists goal should be to seek the truth and not push an agenda designed to curtail human flourishing.”
Indeed true.
Either FF emissions are the main cause of the rise in CO2 or they are not. Nature does what it does and it has no reason to comform to your ideology.
That is why it so puzzling that you guys seem SO DETERMINED to prove that they are not.
When you are ONLY skeptical of evidence supportive of the FF model, that is not seeking the truth.
Let me just add that Berry’s model sets aside much of previous carbon cycle findings, and proposes an much simplified alternative model. And of course he cant get it published.
From the perspective of a mainstream scientist, his approach is a-priori, highly implausible, since ignoring lots of previous science findings is rarely a good idea, and rarely does the correct science turn out to be much simpler.
From the contrarion perepective, the simplicity of his model is appealing, and the fact that he gives a big middle finger to the IPCC and mainstream climate science makes the sale.
Again, nature is doing what it is doing and doesnt give a shit if the IPCC turns out to be right or the contrarions do.
You might want to keep that in mind when you decide which evidence to be skeptical of or not.
Chic,
What increase in natural emissions do you speak of?
Remember, if a process that was once entirely natural but is now perturbed by an effect that is itself attributable to anthroprogenic causes then that “natural” process is no longer natural. You count that perturbation as anthroprogenic as well.
Nevermind that both the hydrosphere is a net absorber of carbon so I think you’re going to have a hard time finding a natural net emitting reservoir in the first place.
Nate, the King of Obfuscation, is at it again. First he appeals to the authority of the mainstream scientist whoever that is. Next, he asserts a too simple model cannot be a good idea. William of Ockham is turning over in his grave. Apparently Berry’s simple model that fits data and illustrates how physical processes work must be rejected in favor of a more complicated, but highly speculative, model that does not fit the data. Finally, he descends into trash talking nonsense.
bdgwx,
“What increase in natural emissions do you speak of?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-458342
So I must remind you that I am not contrarian or skeptical for the purpose of pushing a political agenda. My aim is to get the science right. I do not care if humans are blamed for doing what we were created to do–multiply and subdue the Earth, not worship it.
Nate says: – That is why it so puzzling that you guys seem SO DETERMINED to prove that they are not. When you are ONLY skeptical of evidence supportive of the FF model, that is not seeking the truth.-
————————–
You are confused Nate.
Believing is NOT seeking Nate. The disadvantage of believing is it inserts you into a box with opaque walls. Most discoveries come from thinking outside of the box because when you believe you don’t seek the truth.
Actually it is calculus, not arithmetic, that fools you.
Waffle. Show the money.
It does not take far-fetched notions to see that if any of the growth in CO2 comes from an increase in natural emissions, then the rise cannot be entirely anthropogenic.
In the face of decades of clear evidence to the contrary you have produced waffle….
It is a purely theoretical convolution to think otherwise.
…and undergraduate piffle.
Hot air, Chic. It’s all you have.
And for people who might be reading along, you can rely on Chic to demonstrate the truth of that with his next reply.
The calculus is demonstrated quite well here:
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/10/carbon-14-analytic-solution-to.html
Could population growth and warmer temperatures contribute more CO2 than claimed by generally accepted estimates of anthropogenic CO2? I show how with a simple model based on a modification of Dr. Spencer’s model. My model uses the Hashemi/Berry/Salby/Harde concept that CO2 absorp_tion is a function of the total atmospheric CO2, not just the excess above some hypothetical equilibrium prior to the industrial era. Check it out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ocmvbbo71fplkr0/Modified%20Spencer%20model.xls?dl=0
Chic,
Difficult to find holes in that model. It actually complies with physics laws.
Stephen,
That’s the whole point, to explain how the simple Berry model using natural first-order kinetics works. The spreadsheet is crude, but it lets one see what the underlying calculus is doing.
It also demonstrates that it only fits the Mauna Loa data by requiring growth in emissions other than the Boden estimates.
Chic it was you who began telling people to ” seek the truth and not push an agenda”.
Suggest you follow your own advice.
Chic cites Ockam to assert that simple is best.
Heres what Einstein said, which i think is apt.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Berrys model is an example of what he was talking about.
Please stop being a pesky obfuscating troll. Make a sensible scientific reply or buzz off.
“The calculus is demonstrated quite well here:
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/10/carbon-14-analytic-solution-to.html”
1. That does not touch on the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 in the atmposphere since the industrial revolutiuon. Looks like you googled for ‘clalculus CO2 atmpsphere’ and this was your best shot, missing by a mile.
2. The maths doesn’t remotely bear on the basic arithmetic that demonstrates with much force that anthro CO2 makes up the vast bulk of the atmospheric increase since the IR. 14CO2 is remotely not germane to this point.
It is forgivable that you came late to the party, but not to come drunk and vomit on the guests.
This post is about whether a downturn in emissions due to Covid-19 will show up in the Muano Loa data. You will get a different result depending on what model you use. As it turns out, most of us paying attention came to the conclusion that it will be too close to call either way. IOW, the variable natural emissions swamp FF emissions.
The discussion turned into a battle of models which is essentially whether absorp_tions are a function proportional to the excess above the IR equilibrium or to the total CO2 concentration in the air regardless of source. Spencer, Cawley, and Halperin models follow the Bern model calculus. Salby, Berry, Harde, Hashemi, and I use physics model calculus that says outflow is proportional to level which is the same as saying absorp_tions are proportional to total CO2 concentration.
Hashemi’s model touches on the anthropogenic contribution because it supports the physics model concept that nature treats all CO2 molecules the same whether they came from FF emissions or elsewhere. Please familiarize yourself with Hashemi’s model development so as not to take my word for it.
https://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/10/falsification-of-anthropogenic-global_39.html
The simple arithmetic and belief that non-anthropogenic emissions remained constant for centuries has you fooled.
Tsk. Sorry about double post. The first one didn’t show up after I posted it.
barry, please stop trolling.
Well stated, Nate.
Whoops…. I didnt see your comment, Barry.
Also well put.
Not what you would expect from Michael Moore and you definitely don’t want to miss this
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE
I am bored and wondering what to do with my time.
I KNOW – I could troll every blog I can find with the comment “please stop trolling”.
If anyone has experience with this kind of trolling, please show me how it’s done below.
Shut up.
Hahahahahaha – the fly has one less wing.
If there’s one thing more boring than the “please stop trolling” comments, it’s the people that complain about them.
There are three types of AGW supporters:
1) Those that know full well there is no GHE, but have devoted their lives to lying about it on blogs.
2) Those that know, deep down, there is no GHE, but have devoted their lives to lying to themselves about it on blogs.
3) Those who have been brainwashed by the Type 1s and Type 2s, until they actually truly believe there is a GHE.
I’ll be here to ask the Type 1s and 2s to “please stop trolling” as long as they continue to do so.
There are three types of deniers:
1) Those that know full well there is a GHE, but have devoted their lives to lying about it on blogs.
2) Those that know, deep down, there is a GHE, but have devoted their lives to lying to themselves about it on blogs.
3) Those who have been brainwashed by the Type 1s and Type 2s, until they actually truly believe there is no GHE.
As you are a Type I or II, DREMT – please stop trolling.
Sure, you could argue the same…but ultimately, only one of us is right.
No GPE, no GHE.
No worries.
DREMT
Yes the only one right on the GHE matter is Midas. You can’t understand it and will not devote time to learn physics to actually understand it.
Correct physics certainly understands a GHE and how and why it works. Those who make up their own physics and are contrarians do not understand physics. There is not even a possible path to explain it to them.
I have used real world measured values of energy fluxes to demonstrate the reality of the GHE but to the deep deniers like you are, it will have no effect. Nothing is able to change your denier state. It is a Contrarian Religion and it is founded on lies and deception but it works well on people who are not willing to learn real physics. You are such a denier of science and will only believe the false and misleading contrarian branch of physics. Mostly made up, some actual physics ideas sprinkled in to make it seem real. It is not and your posts are false and misleading. You perpetuate the lies and deception because Contrarian is a religion to you.
Yawn.
A response which confirms what we’ve been saying. The brainwashing is so deep, you are incapable of even contemplating counter arguments.
Norman didn’t make any arguments to counter.
Its good to find a hobby to keep yourself busy and relieve stress.
This one doesnt seem to work.
Apparently your comprehension doesn’t allow you to understand that I was parodying DREMT’s hobby.
Sorry – I was obviously feeling snappy last night before I went to bed.
I was also picking on DREMTs posting hobby..
And what is your purpose ??
Who?
Midas
Hopefully you have read the replies and understand my purpose. Amazed?
Des, please stop trolling.
Troll, please stop.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Barry, bdgwx thank you very much for your answers:
The previous exposition I had made to the following two questions is not published, but I will try to publish the questions first:
I wonder if:
“…. integrations of the model of thousands of years”
Isn’t that something that model scenarios include?
And the other characteristics of the equilibrium climatic sensitivity that Wikipedia exposes…..
Why would not the sensitivity calculated by Dr. Spencer fulfill them?
From:
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensibilidad_clim%C3%A1tica
I can’t post the parahraphs of Wikipedia that I selected!
I’m really sorry!
…I Hope you can Guess looking at the before link of Wikipedia…
Thank you everybody for your comprehesion!!!
I know Wikipedia is not IE5 (the fifth IPCC report) but I would very much like you to see what it says about climate sensitivity in three different ways:
Of equilibrium, transitory and effective ..
Nate, Barry and bdgwx:
But if the sensitivity calculated by Dr. Spencer were that of equilibrium it would mean:
– That the warming of the oceans could be mostly natural without a drastic rise in pH being needed as evidence (as bdgwx said that would be the evidence of natural warming in previous comments) because
anthropogenic CO2 would be effectively acidifying the oceans since there is certain evidence of this.
– And there would be a significant CO2 sink that would be undervalued or … undiscovered …
Is my reasoning correct?
I didn’t mean to imply that rising ocean pH meant that the warming was natural. My comment was that if ocean temperatures do rise (whether by human or natural causes) and if no new CO2 is being injected into the carbon cycle then the pH would likely rise. The reason is because the ocean holds less CO2 when it warms so it would become a net emitter. Remember, there are other means by which the planet can warm other than CO2.
Regarding the sensitivity…I kinda missed out on that discussion so I’m not understanding the context of your questions.
Adelaida,
If the model Roy has constructed represents ECS, and if the method is sound, and if the models and several other methods used by many different groups that are cited by the IPCC to get a fix on the range of climate sensitivity are inferior to Roy’s method….
Then Roy is right that the mean ECS is lower than recommended by the IPCC.
That’s a lot of ifs.
I think I will keep my lunch money until the if’s are resolved.
Nate: “Why do you keep asking what basis do you accept the Bern model and reject Berry and Salby models?”
Because Berry and Salby show that the Bern model does not fit the data. You and bdgwx have not shown that it does.
You claimed, Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries. To which I replied, “[Nate] cannot back that up with any firm data, especially any realistic estimate of how many ‘centuries.’
If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I wouldn’t be questioning the orthodox science you are defending to the teeth. Why you are satisfied with that is what is not clear to me. Why not spend more of your time narrowing down the ocean turnover times and number of centuries to do whatever you think anthropogenic carbon is supposed to do? Clarify Nate. Stop with the tiresome obfuscations.
“Thus the surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low and its ability to sink carbon to the deep ocean is very slow, centuries. To which I replied, ‘[Nate] cannot back that up with any firm data, especially any realistic estimate of how many ‘centuries.’
I gave you data which, as I explained a couple of times, shows that the indeed the ‘surface ocean perturbation by anthro CO2 is very low’. It shows that the % increase of the total carbon content of the surface ocean is ~ 1/10 of the atmospheric % increase. You havent disputed this data.
Therefore the time scale for sinking anthro carbon to the deep ocean will be very roughly 10 times the residence time of carbon in the surface reservoirs. It has taken ~ 60 y to remove most of the bomb C14, so it should take ~ roughly 600 y to remove most of the present anthro carbon.
One can quibble with this, as I said rough calculation, but the point of it is just to show that a long time is REASONABLE and to show the connection between Revelle factor and slowness of ocean sinking of anthro carbon.
And ocean acidification is supposed to increase Revelle factor and lengthen the time to remove the anthro carbon.
“You havent disputed this data.”
Not yet. It may not be necessary to dispute it, because extrapolating the 10% factor to residence time does not follow. What equations are you applying to get that?
If it took 60 years to remove most C14, why would it take any longer to remove the same percentage of fossil fuel carbon?
“And ocean acidification is supposed to increase Revelle factor and lengthen the time to remove the anthro carbon.”
What equations are you applying to conclude that?
“Because Berry and Salby show that the Bern model does not fit the data. You and bdgwx have not shown that it does.”
I am not wedded to the Bern model. It is just one model.
What the evidence is compelling about is that the rise in atm CO2 is due predominantly to anthro emissions, and that it will remain in the atmosphere for a long time.
When you say that the Bern model doesnt fit the data, I think you are referring to the bomb C14 data as shown by Salby or Berry. The point is the Bern model is not designed to fit that data because the bomb C14 data is showing residence time of a tracer, while the Bern model is modeling mass relaxation, which is much slower.
“What the evidence is compelling about is that the rise in atm CO2 is due predominantly to anthro emissions, and that it will remain in the atmosphere for a long time.”
Why do you keep repeating that nonsense? You don’t say how much or how long. If not the Bern model, which one are you basing that on?
There you go again with the obfuscatory jargon. What is the difference between residence time and mass relaxation? Please don’t refer to adjustment time or my head will explode.
I listed many examples of observations that the Berry model doesnt fit and hasnt even tried to explain. It is too simple. The observations are explained much better by the anthro emissions.
I explained how I understand the mechanism for the ocean to take a long time, hundreds of years to sink an excess of carbon. The Bern model may have quantified it better, but I havent looked into it in any detail.
‘What is the difference between residence time and mass relaxation?’
One more try…
Lets look at the case of the surface fast-responding reservoirs, atm /mixed-layer/biosphere as they exchange carbon with the deep ocean. The C14 residence time appears to be 17 y or so. Thus 1/17 the carbon in these reservoirs is exchanged with the deep ocean.
But that exchange happens thru the mixed layer. While the fractional increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is x, lets say, the fractional increase of carbon content in the mixed layer is only ~ 10% of x, so ~ 0.1x.
While 1/17 is exchanged per year, the 1 unit of carbon that is exchanged has (at most) 0.1 x more carbon than the carbon from the deep ocean. Thus 0.1x/17 = x/170 of the excess carbon is removed per year. I believe the deep ocean started out it with more carbon content than the surface layers so in reality the x/170 should be less than that.
So residence e-time time 17 y, mass e-time > 170 y.
Nate says: So residence e-time time 17 y, mass e-time > 170 y.
—————————-
Except that the carbon exchange between the surface ocean and the deep ocean doesn’t operate in even a close way with the mixing of a substance that the concentration of varies depending temperature.
On a square meter basis high latitude iceless oceans absorb far more carbon than tropical oceans. And the primary mixing from the surface ocean occurs at high latitudes where is the primary mixing from the deep ocean to the surface ocean occurs in tropical and temperate areas of the ocean.
Its the same physical mixing system but the difference is in the concentration of the element thats being mixed between high latitude and low latitude areas.
So you can just toss that equation out.
Ocean acidification is a big maybe problem. But current estimates on its progression are based upon long term model output both back in time and forward in time, while the actual measurement of the situation in the ocean is extremely limited. Both ocean chemistry and physics is strongly affected by the biosphere and how that operates and how it might adapt. In fact most ocean experiments in testing affects of adding a nutrient are overwhelmed by a variety of species jumping in on the chow wagon, including feasting on bicarbonates. Simple chemical and physical models simply don’t work in the ocean like they do in a jar in a laboratory.
Some ARGO floats have been modified to obtain more information on this. I like this little video short of an Oregon State professor working in the Arctic with the University of Alaska Fairbanks to actually develop some real science on all this. https://ceoas.oregonstate.edu/profile/juranek/
Some key takehome points are:
1. The deep ocean is more acidic than the surface ocean.
2. The loss of ice in high latitudes could enhance the amount of carbon being downwelled to the ocean bottom by providing far larger areas for air and water to mix and for winds to cool the water. Orr alternatively the warming in the Arctic, which is enhanced, might be reducing the carbon input into the deep ocean.
3. As mentioned in the little video in the previous post researchers are surprised at the biorichness of the Arctic saying its a great deal more abundant than previous research has suggested. There are a whole lot of factors at play here that largely make model output likely unreliable.
Bill: you comment that ‘the deep ocean is more acidic than the surface ocean.’
Please, please, choose your terminology more carefully.
The way you describe it suggests that the surface ocean is acidic – which of it isn’t, it’s alkaline, as is the deep ocean. It would be better to cite actual pH values to avoid confusion.
Yes, Bill, the real ocean is more complicated but that doesnt mean the basic phenonomena I described, and as described by Revelle factor isnt real. It is.
Pretty hilarious Nate. If somebody doesn’t believe the tripe you post in here, challenges you, then you go about accusing them of deny every iota of what you saying. You go more neutral (e.g. disbelief in basic phenomena is your overwrought claim if one doesn’t believe in the quantities you pass around.
Not tripe, Bill, facts.
Your complaint
‘Its the same physical mixing system but the difference is in the concentration of the element thats being mixed between high latitude and low latitude areas.’
Not sure what you are trying to say here, if you are saying that there are different temperatures, and Revelle factors at high and low latitudes, then yes, ok.
‘So you can just toss that equation out.’
No, that would be convenient, but it doesnt follow.
My equation is using on ocean wide average to find a rough estimate of e-time.
Its not sufficient for you to say Revelle factor varies so I cant use its average.
If you want to attack that, you need to put in real numbers and show that the difference it makes is actually large.
Nate, I apologize for being impatient. You might have the right mixing rate for a well mixed input of the C14 and its dissipation rate. I don’t know but I will take your word for it.
But you can’t use that formula for CO2 as you have two conditions that in combination affect the accuracy of your estimate.
Both you have a very cold small area of the ocean doing the mixing and you have a different carbon content in that area of the ocean because its cold. C14 is evenly mixed both in the cold and warm zones of the ocean and you still achieved a 17 year turnover.
Then you used the Revelle Factor to determine an ocean uptake rate for the atmosphere based on mean ocean conditions.
With an evenly mixed element in the ocean your calculation might have been correct. But we are talking maybe a 20 to 25C difference in mean sinking water temperature (I know thats well below freezing but you need to study some on the topic of how cold sinking seawater can get without freezing) extracting carbon out of the air at a highly accelerated rate than the ocean wide mean exchange rate for C14 you use.
So you are applying a factor of 10 that may be for CO2 far less. For chuckles throw in a calculation of the rate of CO2 take up at an ocean temperature 20C below the global mean and see what that gives you. If its significant then that should be a notice that perhaps you have some difficult challenges estimating the number even using the Revelle Factor and you still have to deal with alkalinity and salinity difference in the Revelle Factor function.
And please read: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon to get an idea of the challenge facing scientists to solve this puzzle. So you may have been led to believe by somebody after your lunch money that this issue is simply estimated but clearly and is now well established in science that it is not.
Engelbeen, with his usual deep research, has a go at explaining the difference between the residence time of a single molecule, and the relaxation time of excess CO2.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html#Extra:_how_much_human_CO2_is_in_the_atmosphere
Above that section is a good overview of the many-stranded case for anthro CO2 being the primary source of the atmospheric increase over the last 200 years.
Engelbeen is an AGW ‘skeptic’, by the way.
Engelbeen’s analysis essentially assumes the only other avenue for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is global temperature dependent.
Over in the ocean acidification world thats just one way fear is being sown because the temperature route is shall we say to outdoorsmen a bit non-fear provoking. Over on this side where the discussion centers on atmospheric CO2 you really see no hide nor hair of the best fear provoking arguments on ocean acidification because it raises more questions than answers.
To me with many decades of experience in environmental policy this is just business as usual.
So what am I talking about? Well the temperature argument is this slow but steady movement of carbon into the ocean. A lot of carbon for the atmosphere which is a relative pittance for the ocean. Only the totally ignorant are concerned about that. Instead in the ocean acidification world of discourse with those who make a living on the ocean, the discussion centers on abrupt upwelling of carbon from the deeper ocean. The argument goes that adding a little carbon to the ocean is apt to result in greater variability of carbon rich acidic deeper waters upwelling into the surface ocean and kill off populations of species valuable to ocean harvesters. Thus in this world upwelling events are credible because they are real events (it does happen that deep nutrient rich water upwells). Of course the discussion stops there and no mention is made of that being a potential source of CO2 in the atmosphere. . . .instead we go back to the generic mean ocean surface temps and generic mean levels of CO2 in the surface ocean only changing via of course anthropogenic forces. (insert finger deep in the throat). Wild ocean variability is only very carefully pedaled to select audiences in attempts to overcome a lack of concern.
Again, Bill, here you are littering what should be a science post with all sorts of political nonsense, losing the point and your credibility along the way.
Heres Engelbeen giving a quite similar explanation to what I gave above:
“The IPCC comes with much longer half life times, according to the Bern model. This is a combination of relative fast (upper oceans), slower (deep oceans and more permanent storage in the biosphere) and very slow (rock weathering) sinks for the extra CO2. They assume that the first, relative fast, sinks of CO2 will reduce in capacity over the years. That is only true for the ocean surface layer, which follows the atmosphere quite rapidly (1-3 years), but is saturated at 10% of the change in the atmosphere, due to the buffer/Revelle factor. Some media talk about hundreds to thousands of years that the extra CO2 will reside in the atmosphere. That is true for the last part of the curve, as the smaller amounts of CO2 are getting slower and slower into the sinks. But the bulk (87.5 %) of the extra CO2 will disappear within 120 years as there is no sign of a slowdown of the sink capacity of the deep oceans and vegetation.”
And he offers one more accounting of residence time (Chic should take a Valium before reading) vs mass relaxation time.
“The previous paragraphs are about how much human induced CO2 still is in the atmosphere. That is about the origin and fate of individual CO2 molecules, which atmospheric lifetime is governed by the seasonal turnover (back and forth flows) of about 150 GtC in/out the atmosphere from/to oceans and vegetation, and has nothing to do with the fate of the extra amount of CO2 (as mass) that humans emit, neither with the increase of total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as result of that. The latter is governed by the net amounts which year by year are incorporated into oceans and vegetation. That is only 1-7 GtC/year (variable due to temperature variability) or in average 50-55% of the emissions.”
Nate says: -Again, Bill, here you are littering what should be a science post with all sorts of political nonsense, losing the point and your credibility along the way.
—————————
Here Nate has no reply so he is going to concede the debate and go ad hominem.
Nate again demonstrates his ability to obfuscate and appeal to authority or anyone who agrees with him. Mr. Englebeen’s claim that “the ocean surface layer…is saturated at 10% of the change in the atmosphere” is contradicted by one of his own subsequent statements.
“…talk about hundreds to thousands of years that the extra CO2 will reside in the atmosphere…is true for the last part of the curve” is meaningless since 100% of any FF carbon will NEVER be completely removed. People need to talk in terms of years to remove 95% and/or a number of lifetimes just as is done with C14.
Next, Englebeen writes, “But the bulk (87.5 %) of the extra CO2 will disappear within 120 years as there is no sign of a slowdown of the sink capacity of the deep oceans and vegetation.” This is a slap in the face of Nate’s hand-waving arguments.
Mr. Englebeen writes, “The latter is governed by the net amounts which year by year are incorporated into oceans and vegetation.” It is not clear what “latter” refers to. It could be one of at least three things. One (A) is “how much human induced CO2 still is in the atmosphere” which he says is related to individual molecule lifetime (seasonal turnover, Nate’s exchange rate, and most everyone else’s residence time, half-life, or e-time). He says that has nothing to do with two other potential latters, “the fate of the extra amount of CO2 (as mass) that humans emit (B)” and C, “the increase of total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of [B, I presume].
Englebeen’s “latter” is governed by the 1 to 7 GtC/year (let’s use the middle of the range or about 2 ppm CO2) annual net amounts sinked. I’m guessing the “latter” is C, simply because it is the last of the three candidates, making his conclusion to be “the increase of total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is governed by the net amounts which year by year are incorporated into oceans and vegetation.”
I’m open to other interpretations, but at the moment I am not getting any more from Mr. Englebeen than what some of us on either side of the issue have already agreed on. The annual net amount of total emissions minus total absorp_tions is about 2 ppm which is coincidentally loosely equivalent to half of the estimated annual human emissions.
“obfuscate and appeal to authority or anyone who agrees with him.”
The reason Engelbeen and I, and many others indepently give a similar explanation is because it is based on well known facts about Revelle factor and what it means and available data that is consistent. If that is considered obfuscation, Chic, then mainstream science is just trying to confuse you.
And his 120 y and my 170 y are close enough as rough estmates.
Nate says: The reason Engelbeen and I, and many others indepently give a similar explanation is because it is based on well known facts about Revelle factor and what it means and available data that is consistent. If that is considered obfuscation, Chic, then mainstream science is just trying to confuse you.
And his 120 y and my 170 y are close enough as rough estmates.
——————
Based upon what evidence Nate?
The Revelle Factor might be an important way to calculate deep ocean uptake and release of carbon, but if it is it will need to be sampled like temperature at random locations around the ocean collecting in addition to the location the following information: The local water temperature, its salinity, and a yet to be defined factor that describes the rate of deepwater formation and upwellings in the various locations.
Currently there is no technology that can do it ergo the cruises to sample all sorts of types of data and work on the problem. Traveling around the ocean and collecting data will begin to either define these areas as permanent ocean features or find they move around randomly depending upon wind and ice conditions. I figure its probably unlikely that these deepwater formation operate under the ice because of the insulating nature of the ice preventing winds from supercooling the surface waters. they maybe able to use some gliders and buoys to collect data on this but they may also need to develop some better technology for quantifying the water movement in the active areas and what drives it.
One cannot just assume even ocean wide uptake and release of carbon to and from the atmosphere when observations and physics both tell you its not true. The Revelle Factor is responsive to both water temperature and salinity. But you need a database and better understanding of deepwater formations to properly apply it.
Nate: “And [Englebeen’s) 120 y and my 170 y are close enough as rough estmates.”
Rough estimates of what? Mass relaxation time? Which is what, the time for a pulse to decay? By how much? 90%, 95%, 99.999%. Close enough only counts in kissing, horseshoes, and ….
Obfuscate on!
‘Rough estimates of what? Mass relaxation time? Which is what, the time for a pulse to decay?’
Ofuscate on”
If you bothered to read what each of us wrote you would not need to ask this question.
Both of us made it abundantly clear we were talking about mass relaxation time.
I dont see in detail how he calculated 120 y for as he stated, reduction of atm Co2 by.875.
Getting into the weeds, as you are doing here, is obfuscation by intentionally missing the point. And that is that 120 y and 170 y are both >> 17 y the residence time, and >>> than the 4 y original e-time of Berry.
I’m not letting you skate on this. Getting into the weeds is what science is about. It is the opposite of obfuscation and glossing over important points.
17 years is the e-time for the decay of C14 following the bomb tests in the 1960s. Salby, Berry, and Kevan Hashemi all independantly arrived at roughly that value by classical mathematical derivations.
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/11/carbon-14-bomb-tests.html
The four year e-time or residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is determined from the rate at which total emissions are being absorbed on an annual basis. Emissions are greater than absorp_tions which results in an annual increase in atmospheric CO2, nevertheless the rate of “exchange” remains between 0.2/yr and 0.3/year and is not slowing down to any measurable effect.
I have not disagreed with your 170 >>> 17 (C14) or 4 (CO2). I am asking you to explain what mass relaxation time means. What are the implications? 170 > 17. So what? Say what you mean by that or shut up.
“I have not disagreed with your 170 >>> 17 (C14) or 4 (CO2). I am asking you to explain what mass relaxation time means. What are the implications? 170 > 17. So what? Say what you mean by that or shut up.”
I believe I have said what I mean by that any number of times.
The residence time, that is measured by tracer relaxation is not = to the relaxation time of atm CO2 concentration (mass), as Berry and Salby wanted us to believe.
You have been arguing for quite sometime that there is no difference. Yes?
Therefore the fitting or lack thereof of bomb C14 relaxation to any model meant to model CO2 relaxation (such as Bern) is a strawman.
“The residence time, that is measured by tracer relaxation is not = to the relaxation time of atm CO2 concentration (mass), as Berry and Salby wanted us to believe.”
You are imagining what Berry and Salby want you to believe, because it fits comfortably within the limits of your understanding.
“You have been arguing for quite sometime that there is no difference. Yes?”
No, and your obfuscation has now become outright lying.
“Therefore the fitting or lack thereof of bomb C14 relaxation to any model meant to model CO2 relaxation (such as Bern) is a strawman.”
Your conflation of relaxation, adjustment, residence, and so on is annoying. But you are the King of Obfuscation. That’s what you do.
Ok, so you ask me wht it means. I answer you. My answer doesnt fit your beliefs. So you get your panties in a bunch. And forget that truth seeking is your stated goal here.
This is the rut we’re in.
Please do review for us what Berry wants us to believe the bomb C14 relaxation means.
From Wikipedia: “In the physical sciences, relaxation usually means the return of a perturbed system into equilibrium. Each relaxation process can be categorized by a relaxation time tau. The simplest theoretical description of relaxation as function of time t is an exponential law exp(-t/tau) (exponential decay).”
In my opinion, that is what Physicist Dr. Ed Berry wants you to believe relaxation means. He calls it e-time in his papers.
Also in my opinion, someone needs to change Wikipedia’s “categorized” to “characterized” lest anyone gets confused about the difference between e-time and the number of e-times it takes for equilibrium to be indistinguishable from the baseline.
characterized: you can actually edit Wikipedia yourself.
“the return of a perturbed system into equilibrium.”
OK fine.
But he has tried to say that the bomb C14 relaxation, should be a measure of that. Yes?
I am saying it is not. As a tracer, C14 is only measuring exchange rate, and residence time, as discussed by many, many times.
And the current discussion of removal of carbon to the deep ocean is one example of how they can be very different.
You can lead a troll to water, but you cannot prevent him from obfuscating. That’s what they do.
No, not at all, these are simply the facts and logic as I see them.
There is absolutely no effort on my part to try to be confusing.
Am I getting Berry’s claims wrong?
Where is your logical or fact-based rebuttal?
Nate,
Just so I understand what your equation for “mass e-time” is, 0.1x (the fractional increase of carbon in the mixed layer) divided by 17 (the C14 residence e-time) = a fraction (x/170) of the excess carbon removed per year, where x = the fractional increase in carbon content of the atmosphere.
That is as clear as mud. What it boils down to is this: Your mass e-time is the residence time divided by 0.1, which is a fraction of the fractional increase in atmospheric carbon.
Is it possible you could clarify that in standard math and english?
You weirdly paraphrased what I wrote instead of quoting me, and of course it is mangled and makes no sense.
If really want to delve into it, then qote me, in context, and tell me what part you dont get.
What you wrote made no sense to me. I simply tried to rephrase it the way I understood it. I think you believe the Revelle factor somehow prolongs the alternative measures of residence time, such as mass relaxation time or the enigmatic adjustment time.
Why not clarify what you mean and get the obfuscatory rap off your record? Better yet just admit you really don’t fully understand what’s going on enough to keep on pontificating about it.
“What you wrote made no sense to me. I simply tried to rephrase it the way I understood it.”
I guess I will have to quote myself since you cannot bring yourself to do that, and try to go through each step to see where you depart.
“The C14 residence time appears to be 17 y or so. Thus 1/17 the carbon in these reservoirs is exchanged with the deep ocean.”
Of course this is ignoring long-term storage of C14 in terrestrial biosphere. If we include that removal, that would LOWER the amount that must be removed via exchange with the deep ocean. That would INCREASE the time it takes to remove carbon to the deep ocean.
Thus ignoring that gives a LOWER LIMIT on removal time.
Yes or No? If not why not?
“But that exchange happens thru the mixed layer.”
Yes?
“While the fractional increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is x, lets say, the fractional increase of carbon content in the mixed layer is only ~ 10% of x, so ~ 0.1x.”
This is a straightforward statement of what Revelle Factor means.
Yes or No?
“While 1/17 is exchanged per year, the 1 unit of carbon that is exchanged has (at most) 0.1 x more carbon than the carbon from the deep ocean. ”
This is a rough estimate. The question for you: is the principle correct? If not why not?
“Thus 0.1x/17 = x/170 of the excess carbon is removed per year.”
Yes or No?
“So residence e-time time 17 y, mass e-time > 170 y.”
You can quibble with the exact result here. I have no problem with that.
But the main take away should be that mass e-time is >> residence e-time.
Yes or No? If not, give a credible reason why not.
“Of course this is ignoring long-term storage of C14 in terrestrial biosphere.”
What long term storage? The 17 year decay is from data that includes all sources and sinks. The removal rate for C14 may differ from C12, but you cannot change it by introducing some mystery biosphere.
“If we include that removal, that would LOWER the amount that must be removed via exchange with the deep ocean. That would INCREASE the time it takes to remove carbon to the deep ocean.”
I agree with your thinking that lowering the amount that must be removed via exchange, which is the same as slowing the exchange rate, increases the time to sink CO2. That is standard kinetics. I just do not get where this long-term storage is coming from.
“Thus ignoring that gives a LOWER LIMIT on removal time.”
Removal time is infinite. You will never remove all of anything from the planet. This is what you don’t seem to get. There is no complete 100% mass removal e-time. If there is, what is the equation for calculating it?
“This is a straightforward statement of what Revelle Factor means.”
Not exactly, but that is a discussion for another time. The Revelle factor cannot predict the difference in concentration of carbon between the surface ocean and the deep ocean. It cannot be used to constrain or calculate the rate that carbon is transferred to the deep ocean.
Do you agree that C14 is back to where it was prior to 1960? That is 60 years, not 120, not 170, not centuries. It is a multiple of residence times depending on how close to 100% return to baseline you specify. Mass removal e-time is something you have conjured up to make a complex problem much more complicated. If I am wrong, post the equation for calculating it.
“But the main take away should be that mass e-time is >> residence e-time.”
No one disputes that removal time time is some multiple of residence time.
“What long term storage?”
Old growth forests and their carbon build up in the soil. There are trees and dead wood in forests older than 60 y, and I have seen references that conversion of forest or rainforest to agriculture releases a century of stored carbon.
“Removal time is infinite. You will never remove all of anything from the planet”
C’mon you know darn well we’ve been discussing removal of carbon from the atmosphere and surface, and spreading it evenly throughout the carbon cycle, ie mostly into the deep ocean.
“I agree with your thinking that lowering the amount that must be removed via exchange, which is the same as slowing the exchange rate, increases the time to sink CO2. That is standard kinetics. ”
Ok great.
“The Revelle factor cannot predict the difference in concentration of carbon between the surface ocean and the deep ocean.”
As the paper I showed you found, the Revelle factor is predicting quite accurately the PERCENT CHANGE IN carbon content of the surface ocean over time. I think its a safe assumption the deep ocean’s massive carbon content is changing very little over a century. Thus the Revelle factor is predicting the CHANGE IN the imbalance of carbon concentration between deep ocean and surface, to first order.
“It cannot be used to constrain or calculate the rate that carbon is transferred to the deep ocean.”
This is a declaration. Where is the argument or evidence to support this?
“Do you agree that C14 is back to where it was prior to 1960? That is 60 years, not 120, not 170, not centuries. It is a multiple of residence times depending on how close to 100% return to baseline you specify.”
Ok, so? This is just different locations on the relaxation curve. This is besides the point. Are you obfuscating?
The issue at hand is that e-time for residence of carbon 14 tracer << e-time of overall carbon concentration. If the e-time of C14 is 17 y, the e-time of total carbon concentration is roughly 10 times as long, 170 y, is what I am arguing. If the 95% decay time is 60 y for C14, then the 95% decay time is ~ 600 y for total carbon concentration.
“the Revelle factor is predicting quite accurately the PERCENT CHANGE IN carbon content of the surface ocean over time.’
To put this in another context:
“The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level:
Outflow = L/Te “
Let us go through this C14 business from the top. Prior to 1960, there was a baseline of C14 in the air established by an equilibrium between the sources and sinks. It seems you are proposing that the rate of a “long term storage” source increased after 1960 thus increasing the amount of C14 to be removed. You seem to be saying that extra amount of C14 limits the amount of C14 that CAN, not must, be removed by exchange with the deep ocean. Lowering the rate that can be removed leads to an increase in the time to remove it.
I will stop here and see if we are still on the same page while I address your other comments.
the problem with the pure application of physics to such a problem is it hardly ever works out in the expected way.
Why? Because physics has no information on the primordial soup. For instance if you can actually show in an aquaculture environment that additional CO2 creates a substantial reduction in survivability of certain species that information doesn’t have a positive track record of transferring to the natural environment.
The reason is that survivability in the wild environment isn’t dependent upon a single variable. In fact, the most important variable is forage. Populations in the wild above all has to eat to survive and thats the variable that has the most impact on just about all species including humans.
So a more interesting look at the situation might be to look at primary ocean productivity. Currently trends in that metric look positive for global warming.
Bill,
I appreciate your point about the application of pure physics. In fact, it applies directly to the Revelle factor where the chemistry of the carbonates is affected by marine biota. However, I am trying to have a conversation with Nate here.
“Let us go through this C14 business from the top. Prior to 1960, there was a baseline of C14 in the air established by an equilibrium between the sources and sinks.”
Yes except for a gradual decrease in tree rings observed by Seuss, and cited as evidence of low C14 carbon entering the atmosphere, ie from FF.
“It seems you are proposing that the rate of a ‘long term storage’ source increased after 1960 thus increasing the amount of C14 to be removed.’
Huh? Where do you get that idea? The bombs created the extra C14 to be removed after 1960. The ‘long term storage’ of carbon in foprests Im talking about has always been happening, and simply is one of the places C14 could be removed to.
“You seem to be saying that extra amount of C14 limits the amount of C14 that CAN, not must, be removed by exchange with the deep ocean. Lowering the rate that can be removed leads to an increase in the time to remove it.”
No, not at all. This is all a side issue and a distraction. Are you obfuscating?
OK, let’s go back to here where you wrote,
“The C14 residence time appears to be 17 y or so. Thus 1/17 the carbon in these reservoirs is exchanged with the deep ocean.”
And you explained,
“Of course this is ignoring long-term storage of C14 in terrestrial biosphere. If we include that removal, that would LOWER the amount that must be removed via exchange with the deep ocean. That would INCREASE the time it takes to remove carbon to the deep ocean.
Thus that gives a LOWER LIMIT on removal time.”
I probed asking about the long-term storage and you replied,
“Old growth forests and their carbon build up in the soil. There are trees and dead wood in forests older than 60 y, and I have seen references that conversion of forest or rainforest to agriculture releases a century of stored carbon.”
I tried to clarify how that affects the burden of C14 removal by referring to the pre-1960 baseline. You replied,
“Yes except for a gradual decrease in tree rings observed by Seuss, and cited as evidence of low C14 carbon entering the atmosphere, ie from FF.”
n a
Now I am thinking that you want to claim the post 1960 C14 removal rate would be even slower, if the land was not removing a share of the C14 pulse. That would make the burden of removal greater and the removal rate slower and the removal time longer? Do I have it now?
“This is all a side issue and a distraction.”
You are right about that. I’ll post about the Revelle factor in a new thread.
“Now I am thinking that you want to claim the post 1960 C14 removal rate would be even slower, if the land was not removing a share of the C14 pulse. That would make the burden of removal greater and the removal rate slower and the removal time longer? Do I have it now?”
Yes I believe that makes sense. One would have to put in estimated numbers to see how big a difference it makes. I suspect it is small, because we are talking only about the fraction of C exchanged into the biosphere that is stored for > few decades.
Chic,
“Ill post about the Revelle factor in a new thread.”
Where?
Sorry about that. Check here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-463997
[How do you measure how much more CO2 is being released from crop cultivation to meet the needs of growing populations? Primarily an anthropogenic source is not data.]
********
Conservation of Mass:
a principle stating that mass cannot be created or destroyed.
Chic,
do you think a plant creates carbon, and then adds it to the atmosphere?
No, plants do not create carbon. However, the concept might make the basis of a good silly Sally joke.
Do you seriously not understand the carbon cycle? Plants eat CO2 and when they decompose, they give it back up. The more humans plant, the more plants decompose. Has anyone been keeping track of that?
The IPCC has a pretty good breakdown of GHG emissions from land use changes in the 2019 Climate Change and Land report. Note that on pg. 10 of the summary for policy makers it says “No global data are available for agricultural CO2 emissions”. So yeah, that’s a valid criticism. Unless I’ve misunderstood something here then apparently no one is keeping track of it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
Land biomass contribution to the carbon cycle has been calculated by comparing CO2 isotope changes with O2 changes, such as:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1020.8664&rep=rep1&type=pdf
In line with observational reports (satellite), it seems the planet has been greening slightly, or at least up to 10 or 15 years ago. Increased biomass mass is a net CO2 sink, because most of that mass (trunks, branches, stems) is perennial.
Just curious, how do you get accuracy of net 1.4 +/- 0.8 GtC sequestered by land biosphere from isotopic flux variability of 89 +/- 21 GtC/mil/year?
I don’t know. Have you tried contacting the authors?
That’s just one paper, an example.
S,
Do you think that burning plants (or oil, coal, etc) does not create CO2? Or do you believe in phlogiston, which has negative mass? Are you really as thick as your witless one-liners indicate?
This article should help – same idea:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/environment-quirky-science-you-asked/humans-and-animals-exhale-carbon-dioxide-every-breath-why-not-considered-be-problem-far-global
I would not say it is the same idea, but I found this conclusion interesting:
“But can we help reduce global warming by dying? Probably. We no longer exhale carbon dioxide and it will be a long time before the carbon atoms in our body eventually make it back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Of course, there are always plenty of new babies who start to respire as we expire.”
I think, there are two fundamental facts we have to respect in all our considerations:
1.: Within the atmosphere CO2 is inert. That means, there is no CO2 generated or exterminated within the atmosphere.
2.: The atmosphere is well mixed. There is all over the same CO2-concentration (except for small local and temporal disturbances) and for no CO2-molecule within the atmosphere we can tell form which special source it was released into the atmosphere. And for no CO2-molecule that has just left the atmosphere we can tell form which special source it had been released into the atmosphere and how long it had stayed within the atmosphere.
My principal understanding is, that together with general physical principles these two fundamental facts enforce proportionality between the sum of all inputs of CO2 and the concentration of CO2 within the atmosphere. Therefore the increase in CO2-concentration of some 40 % cannot be brought about solely by a source adding only 5 % to the total releases.
If this is correct, the climate problem is fundamentally different from what is discussed normally. There are only two possibilities:
Either CO2 is the main driver of climate change, than it is MAINLY NATURAL CO2 driving the climate. Or some other effect is the main driver, than human CO2-emissions only have a rather LIMITED EFFECT. One way or the other, there is no need for substantial reductions in human CO2-releases!
Eike
So, what do you think determines the rate that CO2 enters the atmosphere naturally (as opposed to human based emissions).
S,
So, why do think anyone should waste time on your obvious trolling?
Chic
[Plants eat CO2 and when they decompose, they give it back up.]
*****
Yes, plants are essentially carbon neutral – the point.
How do you think planting something that is carbon neutral could increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by ANY amount, let alone by 40%?
S,
So how do you think that burning plant material like coal and oil could possibly increase CO2? Didnt you say that plants are carbon neutral? Who cares about your nonsense anyway?
Mike,
The internet has information tailored to almost every skill level, even yours. Use the keywords, [carbon cycle for kids] and see what you can find.
S,
You seem to be obsessed with a non-existent person, so Ill answer on his behalf. NASA, for example, pretends that oil, coal and gas do not actually exist, except when creating new CO2. Look it up. What a pack of dummies! Avoid the kid stuff. Try some real science.
You been bamboozled
First Michael Moore releases the most damming green energy scam documentary, and then –
Global Warmista Gates buys $43 million beachfront mansion just a pissadistance from the ocean
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/gates-del-mar.png
I think we have reached The Tipping Point
You can get better pictures of here.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2808-Ocean-Front_Del-Mar_CA_92014_M22503-34650#photo16
It has a sea wall. The contract also indemnifies local council against any flooding from the sea. Council seem concerned about it. Bill won’t live long enough to find out.
Barry once again reveals his scull bone density , as if my post is about the picture quality.
Who red pilled Michael Moore ?
How did the super leftist Michael Moore end up producing better and more skeptical green energy scam revealing documentary than the skeptics ever could ?
Are we living in the Bizarro World ? or what is going on here
I see the sarcasm went right over your head. The place has a sea wall, by the way. Not that where Gates has chosen to live matters a fig regarding the science. This is tabloid level purility.
So tell us some detail on Moore’s documentary. It hasn’t been shown in my country.
Moore has had a revelation about renewable energy. His film, which I haven’t seen, allegedly exposes all.
In an interview he was asked about his reversal on support of renewable energy and his reply was he became shocked about it when he learned about how it was made.
So now Moore is toeing the stop using energy period line.
Bill: you comment that ‘the deep ocean is more acidic than the surface ocean.’
Please, please, choose your terminology more carefully.
The way you describe it suggests that the surface ocean is acidic – which of it isn’t, it’s alkaline, as is the deep ocean. It would be better to cite actual pH values to avoid confusion.
I have no trouble understanding that ‘more acidic’ means ‘less alkaline’, and that the actual pH balance is not suggested by either.
I can’t figure out why some people have trouble with this.
Carbon500 is actually right. My bad!
The chemistry in the ocean is far more complex than simply alkaline and acidic. It is though really overbearing when the ocean is headed toward neutral as distilled water as if the addition of acids in the ocean are going to suddenly overcome the fact that overall it is far from acidic. Thats Michael Moore horror movie quality BS and pure speculation while at the same time scientists are already blaming poor harvests on ocean acidification just as folks are blaming global warming for every hurricane.
Distilled water is not neutral, it is actually slightly acidic.