Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 Next
Comments 77201 to 77250:
-
DSL at 07:09 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Ok, so there's variance, but you said "more" variance. What do these variations have to do with the trend in atmospheric CO2? You aren't heading toward some form of "El Nino causes global warming" are you? -
Camburn at 06:18 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
DSL: As of yet, there is no statistical verification of increased events of extreme weather. There are hints, but hints don't work as hints have been known to be wrong in the past. As far as variable weather during the later 40's thru mid 70's. I think that depends on where you live. The weather was far from tranquil in the USA during this period.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Everyone. Please stay on topic. This thread is about Bastardi's Fox news interview. Future off-topic posts will be deleted. -
Dale at 06:15 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
@DSL, "What is the evidence that suggests more natural variance? Why do you think this?" Human emissions are a constant stream. Year on year ppmv rises varies between 0 and +3 (1.5 +-1.5). Since human emissions are constant and would cause the same increase each year, what causes the variance? Natural variance. That means there's a 30GT per year variance. @Dikran, "So, do you agree that conservation of mass applies and the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is equal to the sum of emisions (from all sources) minus the sum of all uptake (basically only natural sinks)? Yes or No?" Yes. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 06:02 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Forget climate scientists correcting Bastardi. What I'd like to see is John Christie, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, or even Fred Singer--all of whom must know how badly wrong Bastardi messed up his high school level knowledge--correct him. Or get a reporter to ask them if Bastardi is correct. See if they are willing to publicly say he's wrong. I'm sure we all know the answer to what will happen though. -
DSL at 04:21 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
He'd never do it, Phila, as you know. He, like his employers, likes the communication to be one-way. If that wasn't him over at Tamino, he's certainly heard about the post/comments by now--and probably read them. I don't think he lacks the intelligence to know that if he crawls out from under the styrofoam rock that is Faux News, reality is going slap him upside the head. Gather funds. Challenge them to a series of debates. Gore could do nothing better with his bank account. Pay them to come out and then expose not just their arguments but the motivations for their adherence to those arguments. Don't do it simply--a one shot, two-hour special. Do a comprehensive job, a two-hour debate for each of the following subjects: CO2, paleo, temp record, sensitivity (over two sessions), models, biosphere, cryosphere, extreme weather, mitigation (over two sessions). If we want mitigation, the democracy must be made responsible, and that only occurs through knowledge. And the U.S. Congress should be forced to watch with head immobilizers and eyelid clamps. Inhofe and Morano get front row seats. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:53 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote: "it's 3am here, so you'll excuse me if I skip your steps." Ignoring for the moment the fact that you didn't answer the question posed to you, I am happy to continue with it tomorrow. If you have the patience to wait for Salby's paper, I have the patience to wait until tomorrow to explain to you why there is no real need to wait until Salby's paper arrives. I have noticed however over the years that as a rule, "skeptics" are unwilling to follow this particular step by step explanation, and refuse to engage with it, because they know there will come a point where they are proved wrong. Please prove an exception to the rule. "If your steps are like the SkS explanation, then I can already predict you assume a limited or no natural variance in natural sources/sinks." No such assumption is involved at any stage (in fact if you follow the steps towards the end I will show a plot that demonstrates that the natural carbon cycle is both unbalanced and highly variable). If you think that it does, then you don't understand the argument, however you can always prove me wrong by pointing it out when you think the assumption has been made. You can only do that though by following the derivation and agreeing or refuting the points step by step. "That is where I disagree, and that I think there is more variance." As I have already pointed out, it is well known that there is considerable variance in the carbon cycle from year to year. I have also explained why it doesn't explain the long term trend. So, do you agree that conservation of mass applies and the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is equal to the sum of emisions (from all sources) minus the sum of all uptake (basically only natural sinks)? Yes or No?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I suggest we ignore Dale on this thread until he answers the question. Either he is interested in the scientific truth, in which case he will go through the exercise with me step by step and we can resolve the issue in a scientific manner, or he is a troll. It is up to him to demonstrate which is the case, but this will only work if we ignore him until he has answered the challenge or ducked it. -
DSL at 03:52 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
I'll repeat what Muon has to say using different language, just in case one of the two of us is confusing. Dale: "That is where I disagree, and that I think there is more variance." What is the evidence that suggests more natural variance? Why do you think this? You keep saying this, in one form or another, but you never provide a theory and evidence to explain it. You just say it. If I held you to your own standards--"beyond a shadow of a doubt"--your baseless "I think" would fail miserably. Note: Keep in mind that what lies "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is the bludgeon of ideology. Science tries not to wander beyond the shadow. If you're looking for absolute truth, go to church, mosque, or temple (or the earlier Francis Fukuyama). -
newcrusader at 03:50 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
(snip) It amazes me that Bastardi and a host of others are even taken seriously. The weather everywhere is becoming more unstable- we have crossed the line into 'Dangerous Climate change'. Heavy rains yesetrday and today in New England- 5" in Boston possible- flooding....ground is saturated- we do not need an errant tropical cyclone.....Moderator Response: [RH] Removed OT historical/political reference. See comments policy. -
Phila at 03:41 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Dhogaza: Phila: you're assuming honesty that's not in evidence, I'm afraid ... Oh, I'm not assuming he's honest, by any means. But given his latest comments, I'm thinking that flat-out stupidity may be an even bigger problem. And I'm wondering if it's possible he could be made to feel ashamed of himself, if confronted face to face by experts. I definitely recognize that it's a longshot, though. pbjamm: I would say that this and similar articles would qualify as experts explaining to him how he is wrong. Yeah, but again, that's all very public. And conversations in person tend to be pretty different from online feuding. A group of climate scientists offering to buy Bastardi lunch and explain why he's wrong would (possibly) be different. Online argument allows for a lot more posturing and wiggle room. That's not a prescription, though. I'm just thinking out loud. And I have to add that even if I were qualified to set the guy straight, I wouldn't relish the thought of spending an afternoon with him. Hopefully it won't violate the commenting policy to suggest that he seems kind of...well, unpleasant. -
pbjamm at 03:11 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Phila@6 I would say that this and similar articles would qualify as experts explaining to him how he is wrong. The link to Tamino's Blog is full of people telling him that he is wrong as well as how he is wrong. It does not seem he is listening to them though. -
CBDunkerson at 03:02 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale wrote: "If your steps are like the SkS explanation, then I can already predict you assume a limited or no natural variance in natural sources/sinks." SkS explanation: "As discussed in the first paragraph of this post (and evident in Figure 1), the natural flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems varies from year-to-year." Funny. Your objection to the 'SkS explanation' seems to be completely false. -
muoncounter at 03:01 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#45: You had asked (Dale#39) "how do ice ages come and go?" In that context, Milankovitch cycles, together with the appropriate oceanic circulation pattern and the associated feedbacks (thank you,Tom Curtis -- I did overgeneralize) combine to provide a forcing mechanism. Science demands explanations. The way some folks use 'natural cycles' can be interpreted as if they are really saying 'I dunno.' ""all" or "almost entirely" is not totally proven as far as I can see." You do not get to use 'its not proven' as a block; if you expect anything to be 'totally proven,' you'd better go into a different line of work. And with that, we stray far from the topic at hand. -
Albatross at 02:56 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @45, a) Re "shouldn't the burden of proof lie on proving humans have caused all of the recent increase?". Had you been familiar with the scientific literature on this subject, you would know that multiple, independent lines of evidence indicate that our emissions are responsible for the rapid increase CO2. There will be a post on this very topic in coming days. b) I find it off that you find Salby's hypothesis tenable, whereas the other "warmist" scientists have to prove (alas one cannot "prove" anything in science) "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Quite the double standard. c) You are now clearly trolling. -
Dale at 02:51 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dikran, it's 3am here, so you'll excuse me if I skip your steps. If your steps are like the SkS explanation, then I can already predict you assume a limited or no natural variance in natural sources/sinks. That is where I disagree, and that I think there is more variance. -
Dale at 02:44 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dikran, I actually said "considering the power of nature to alter its own course". Milankovitch (sp?) cycles are a natural cycle. I didn't just limit it to CO2 or the climate. Please stop moving the goal posts. Also note, I'm not saying recent warming is due to Milankovitch cycles either. There could be some other cycle which we haven't found yet. Which Salby argued for in his podcast mind you. pbjamm, since we already know that warming and CO2 can change naturally, shouldn't the burden of proof lie on proving humans have caused all of the recent increase? I haven't seen that proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can say "some" is due to humans, but to say "all" or "almost entirely" is not totally proven as far as I can see. Not when new natural sources of CO2 keep being found such as all those underwater volcanoes not known about previously, or the recent finding that tropical forests which respond to increased CO2 by growing more are causing more CO2 to be released from the soil than originally thought. -
dhogaza at 02:44 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
Phila: you're assuming honesty that's not in evidence, I'm afraid ... -
Albatross at 02:38 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @40, I was being sarcastic when I said "I and climate scientists had no idea". And for someone who mused up thread that " an "advocate" preaches the AGW doctrine and does not accept any natural cause", you ought to develop a thicker skin, especially should you wish to engage in a rigorous scientific debate with scientists. Besides, I'm not sure what I misinterpreted, please elaborate. "So you are rejecting Salby's theory " It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. Please note the very important difference. And it is not only me who is highly skeptical of his hypothesis, nothing fanatical there (please cease with the strawmen), and for the record he has provided (limited) evidence. It will be interesting to see whether or not Salby's results are reproducible or if he will share his data. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:35 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale, I am happy to walk you step by step through the reason that we can be confident that Salby's conclusion must be wrong, without having to see the paper. Show you are a true skeptic by going through the exercise with me. Do you agree that conservation of mass applies to the carbon cycle, in other words the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is equal to the emissions into the atmosphere from all anthropogenic and natural sources minus the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by all natural carbon sinks (assuming anthropogenic sinks are not significant compared to other sources and sinks). Do you agree that is true? I'm taking my son swimming for half an hour or so, but I'll be back shortly for the next step. -
pbjamm at 02:30 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale@39 "Climate can change either direction by itself, and HAS does this many times in the history of Earth. The possibility that some natural occurrence could cause the last 200 years of warming is real. Or is your argument only applicable where you see fit?" Sure Dale, but what *caused* the climate to change and start/end those Ice Ages? Sure Dale, it is *possible* that "some natural occurrence could cause the last 200 years of warming" but unless you can explain what that natural occurrence is and why CO2 does not cause warming then you have nothing to back up your position. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:27 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale Ice ages come and go not because of the internal variability of the carbon cycle but because of a change in external forcing due to variation in the orbit of the planet. It isn't climate choosing its own course, it is the climate being pushed in a different diretion by changes in forcings. As I have pointed out, the fact that the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 being greater than annual anthropogenic emissions proves that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and hence is opposing the long term trend, not causing it. Of course the carbon cycle includes mechanisms that cause atmospheric CO2 to rise, the point is that we know this is not actually happening; if both man and the natural environment were net sources of CO2 then atmospheric CO2 levels would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions, but this is observed not to be the case. As to your comment to Albatross, people are liable to get exasperated if you repeatedly ignore what they are telling you. Again you ignore the fact that the mass balance problem means that the rise in CO2 can only be anthropogenic. No other explaination can be reconciled with the data (unless UFOs are stealing CO2 from the atmosphere, which I would regard as somewhat unlikely). If you can't understand that very simply point, you are not in a position to make an informed decision. -
Dale at 02:13 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Albatross, there's no need to try to be insulting, considering it was you who made the mis-interpretation of what I said. So you are rejecting Salby's theory when you have not even seen the evidence? Isn't a sceptic (as is continuously said here over and over) one who analyses the body of evidence before making an informed decision? Thus if you're making up your mind before seeing Salby's evidence, ( -Snip- ) As for me, I want to see his data so I can analyse the full body of evidence to make an informed decision.Response:[DB] Please have a care with the inflammatory tone and rhetoric. The next comment constructed in this fashion will simply be deleted.
-
Dale at 02:06 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dikran & muoncounter: If climate cannot alter its own course (according to you), then how do ice ages come and go? Climate can change either direction by itself, and HAS does this many times in the history of Earth. The possibility that some natural occurrence could cause the last 200 years of warming is real. Or is your argument only applicable where you see fit? -
Albatross at 02:03 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @27, "Albatross, affecting the climate is not just limited to CO2" Really? I and climate scientists had no idea. Need remind you that here, in this post, we are concerned (or rather Salby is) with the what is driving the rapid increase in CO2 levels. Please stop playing games-- it is transparent and not constructive. You do not have to see Salby's data, or presume anything. Based on the information at that he has volunteered Salby is sunk. You know the premise of his hypothesis-- based on what we have long known about the carbon cycle, do his musings make you the least bit skeptical of his claims? It seems not. Now perhaps he is a lousy communicator (doubtful, he has published in reputable journals before) or has not volunteered some critical information, or perhaps he has just gone "emeritus"-- we will see. But a true skeptic should be raising his or her eyebrows when they hear something like what Salby is claiming. Not going "Wow!" like Judith Curry did, or posting it at WUWT as the the definitive death blow to the theory of AGW as Watts unskeptically and uncritically did (without caveats) when he gave Bastardi a platform and a megaphone-- well death blow is how "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW there are interpreting Bastardi's very, very confused diatribe in which he makes specific reference to Salby's hypothesis. -
Phila at 01:54 AM on 16 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
What I'd like to see is for climate scientists and/or other news outlets/politicians to very publicly call Bastardi and Fox News out for this. I wonder if it would be better for climate scientists to offer to meet with him and explain, in private, the points he got wrong. Public humiliation and contradiction tend to make people dig in their heels (people like Bastardi, especially). Having a bunch of experts politely demolish his views in private might not cause him to recant them, but maybe it'd make him think twice before saying similarly daft things again. It's a very faint hope, granted. After all, someone who was capable of feeling shame, or learning from mistakes, would probably not be in Bastardi's position. Still, calling people out doesn't have a great track record either. -
bartverheggen at 01:07 AM on 16 August 2011SkS Weekly Digest #11
This seems based on SkS input: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/aug/15/everything-know-climate-change?CMP=twt_gu Great infographic with science-based soundbites! -
Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 16 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
muoncounter @36, " Natural systems respond in a manner to oppose change" That is an over generalization. What can be said confidently is that natural systems do not typically have unstable feedback loops, where a feedback loop is unstable if it has a gain of <-1 or >1. However many natural systems do have feed backs with a gain >0 but <1. Mean Global Temperature is one of them, with increased temperature bringing about changes that tend to increase temperature, but by less than the initial increase. CO2 is another, with increased CO2 leading to increased temperature, which leads to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which leads to increased temperature. In this case the gain is <<0.5, but >0. The importance of a gain less than 1 is that any feedback with a gain less than 1 will self damp so that the initial signal is amplified, but you do not get a run away feedback. Of course, I'm pretty sure you know all this, and just got carried away. -
muoncounter at 23:08 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
DM#35: "opposing the increase not causing it. " That's another vital point: Natural systems respond in a manner to oppose change (example - Lenz' Law). If increasing temperature produces CO2 and increased CO2 increases temperature, we must be living on Venus. And if you buy that, I have a perpetual motion machine for sale on eBay. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:55 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
muoncounter Absolutely, for the "natural variability" to be the answer then either it must be in response to an extrenal forcing (not much evidence for that) or a 400-year+ cycle in climate, that for some reason was not affecting the carbon cycle much until this particular cycle (good luck with that!). Either way it is difficult to argue that the carbon cycle can alter its own course any more than a pendulum can. However, in either case, the mass balance argument proves beyond reasonable doubt that the environment is anet sink and has been opposing the increase not causing it. -
muoncounter at 22:37 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
DM#33: There's an interesting chain of 'logic' here. A physical object altering its own course would seem to violate Newton's First Law, which requires an outside causal agent. One could speculate based on limited observation that a string pendulum, for example, alters its own course (it does not) and perhaps generalize to 'all oscillating systems alter their own course.' Hence, since weather patterns appear to oscillate, they must be altering their own course. But the natural tendency of such systems is to run down (a pendulum will stop, a spring-driven watch must be rewound); at least one Law of Thermodynamics guarantees this. So I have difficulty with an ongoing trend - especially one that may be increasing in magnitude rather than winding down - operating without some external forcing giving it a push. If nature alters its own course, wouldn't it therefore be in violation of its own laws? -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:22 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
muoncounter wrote: "To be a fair and balanced skeptic, one would have to withhold judgement on that until the data demonstrating a means by which nature alters its own course are presented. Did I miss it?" Well Dale has missed the fact that the data unambiguously shows that even if such a mechanism existed, it clearly hasn't "altered its own course". -
muoncounter at 22:18 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale#30: "I'll wait to see his data... " That essentially means you disagree with the non-skeptic community who loudly proclaimed the alarming Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans and the very insightful Wow. Have you expressed your skepticism (or at least your advice to withhold judgement until seeing the actual evidence) to cool off these hot-blooded alarmists? Or do you only express the cool logic of skepticism here? that humans are "almost entirely responsible" for climate change is, IMO, a bit silly, considering the power of nature to alter its own course To be a fair and balanced skeptic, one would have to withhold judgement on that until the data demonstrating a means by which nature alters its own course are presented. Did I miss it? -
Matt Holden at 22:14 PM on 15 August 2011Soil Carbon in the Australian Political Debate (Part 1 of 2)
You all may be interested in an email exchange I had with Greg Hunt, the opposition spokesman on this stuff. Depressingly light on detail – what did I expect? But here are a couple of quotes: "We expect that the cost of buying back abatement will average $12 per tonne. We have allowed $15. And in the first year to ensure a fast start we have allocated enough to purchase 20[0] million tones at the conservative allowance or 215 million tonnes at our expected average cost." Then this, in response to my question about what they were actually intending to purchase: "A farmer could capture carbon in their soil, capture carbon in trees or in revegetation. A council could clean up their waste landfill gas or we could provide incentives to clean up a power station by converting from coal to gas …" Don’t know how much of that you get for $13 a tonne … -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:59 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale That the carbon cycle has natural variability is well known - and as I pointed out in my first post on this thread is something that has been used to make the same incorrect arguments before (e.g. by Roy Spencer). The mass balance argument demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment has been a net sink and has opposed, not caused, the rising trend in atmospheric CO2 for at least the last fifty years. This point shows that natural variability of the carbon cycle cannot explain the long term trend. Unless you can address this point, your comments on Salby's paper have already been refuted, so please stop repeating them. p.s. sorry for the shouting, but Dale doesn't seem to be listening to this particular point. -
CBDunkerson at 21:57 PM on 15 August 2011One Confusedi Bastardi
What I'd like to see is for climate scientists and/or other news outlets/politicians to very publicly call Bastardi and Fox News out for this. Accuse them of airing blatantly false information. Make an ongoing unholy stink about it and the fact that they continue to stand behind the false information despite being supplied with the facts. Because the only recourse the deniers would then have would be to sue for defamation/libel/slander... and there is absolutely no way they could win (at least in the U.S. court system) because the accusations being TRUE is an unbreakable defense. Even if they can prove that you made the accusations with the specific intent of damaging the reputation of the other party, it doesn't matter if those accusations were accurate. I really want to see this stuff end up in court... where there are penalties for making false statements. We've all seen that there aren't any drawbacks for denier politicians, news media, and pseudo-scientists spreading this nonsense... indeed, it benefits their careers. But get them in court and it is a whole different story. -
Doug Mackie at 21:38 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
The avoidance of heteronymns is not the reason: I refuse to take out the refuse just because you are busy trying to refuse the lights. (The initial comment was a hat tip to Tolkien and his aside about dwarfs/dwarves in the introduction to the now filming Hobbit). -
Dale at 21:37 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
My understanding of what Salby was presenting was an argument that the natural carbon cycle balance is variable. He said that human emissions have risen at a steady state, yet yearly increase in ppmv ranges from 0 to 3 (averaging around 1.5). Since the human line has little variance this leaves the natural cycle causing the variance. Rightly or wrongly he says current models assume an assumed balanced natural carbon cycle, when the possibility exists that it can actually go one way or the other and affect long term trends. History supports this in that CO2 was able to naturally increase and decrease without any help from us. But as I've said above, I'll wait to see his data before hanging or lauding him. -
Tom Curtis at 21:20 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
OT Doug Mackie @4, "Why not reeves?" Because reeves where rent/tax collectors, a term now only familiar in the modern derivative of a common form of tax collector, the Shire Reeve (Sheriff). Apparently the noun still survives with close to its original meaning in Canada (which I didn't know previously.) -
Keith Hunter at 20:54 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
@GlenT Consider the plots in Figure 15 as "typical" of one place in each ocean. The geographical trends are interesting. The saturation depth doesn't change a lot in the Atlantic, but becomes shallower in the Pacific from north to south. The real significance of these plots is how they determine where CaCO3 fossils accumulate on the sea floor. Recall that coccolithophores are plants so they only grow in the surface ocean where the light is. After they die, they sink into the deep ocean. If the sea floor happens to be shallower than the saturation depth, they will not dissolve - thermodynamics prevents that. If the sea floor is deeper, then they will dissolve, given enough time. Studies of deep sea sediments show that CaCO3 sediments dominate only in the submarine mountain ranges that are shallower than the saturation depth. I liken this to snow on mountains - it's only cold enough for the snow to persist high up on the mountain. The really deep parts of the ocean have very little CaCO3 in the sediments. -
Doug Mackie at 19:50 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
@GlennT Don't take the figures as the final word. Each ocean basin encompasses large variations in every parameter. The figures are for WOCE data from stations I chose randomly years ago as being 'representative'. I don't honestly recall what I was looking at to make that selection at the time but on my list of things-I-pretend-I-will-do-but-really-will-never-get-round-to is to collate and analyse such profiles for all the stations (and JGOFS, GEOSECS etc) and rework with projected CO2. But hey, the data is freely available. Go to it. The next series depends on a few watched research kettles coming to the boil. -
Doug Mackie at 19:49 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
@Bern Sob. Has nobody listened? Just because a process is thermodynamically favoured does not mean it will happen instantaneously. Blog science happens when people stray from their expertise. Reefs (why not reeves?) are Ove's department over at climate shifts. But my non-specialist $0.02 is to remind you that corals are living organisms. That is they expend energy to maintain that thermodynamically non-equilibrium state we call life. They maintain and build reefs even though ambient conditions fluctuate significantly over daily, tidal, and seasonal cycles. There seems every likelihood that, for some little time at least, corals will be able to expend a more energy to build and maintain their reefs as ocean acidification progresses. Quite when that becomes unsustainable is the topic of current research. BUT I stress again that I am outside my comfort zone writing about the response of living coral reefs - go ask Ove. Or read his previous SkepticalScience posts). GBR 1, GBR 2, and GBR 3 -
Tom Curtis at 19:34 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale @27, it is mathematically possible that there exists a natural mechanism with two phases, in one of which all human emissions would have been absorbed without increase in atmospheric CO2; and in the other of which atmospheric CO2 would have increased by 100 ppm over 100 years regardless of human emissions, and that by pure coincidence the natural system switched from the first to the second phase approximately 100 years ago. If such a system existed, then indeed the rise in CO2 levels over the last one hundred years would not be anthropogenic, the mass balance argument not-with-standing. Therefore Salby should not be treated quite as we would treat somebody approaching us to show of their new perpetual motion machine. But I have listened to Salby's podcast. Not only does he not present evidence for such an extraordinary mechanism - he does not even argue for its existence. Rather he argues that the existence of a short term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves that the cause of the short term variation is also the cause of the long term trend. That is known to be a fallacious argument, and he presents nothing else. That leaves Salby not in the position of a discoverer of perpetual motion, but rather in the position of somebody purporting to disprove Special Relativity who has not bothered to adduce relevant evidence. It is certainly logically possible that he is correct. It is also logically possible that I should win 50 million dollars on the Lotto this weekend, and far more likely. -
Tom Curtis at 19:21 PM on 15 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Crispy, you may wish to add to your homeworkd Indermühle et al, 1999 which discusses variation in atmospheric CO2 over the last 10,000 years:
They ascribe the 15 ppm increase in CO2 concentrations over the course of the Holocene partly to deforestation, and partly to a rise in global sea surface temperatures. Such a rise is consistent with what is known about the Holocene Climactic Optimum (and should introduce due caution about overstating its extent) in that the high temperatures 8,000 years ago where primarily a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, while the majority of the worlds ocean surface is in the Southern Hemisphere, which has been warming over that interval. The deforestation is ascribed partly to the desertification of the Sahara, but significantly (>50%) to the introduction and spread of agriculture. In other words, a significant part of the rise in CO2 levels over that period are anthropogenic.
Indermühle et al cite Bacastow, R. B. "The effect of temperature change of the warm surface waters of the oceans on atmospheric CO2" Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 10, 319±333, (1996) and Takahashi et al, "Seasonal variation of CO2 and nutrients in the high-latitude surface oceans: A comparative study" Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 843±878 (1993), to say:
"A change of SST by 10C causes a change in the surface ocean's CO2 partial pressure by 4.2% which translates into an atmospheric change of similar magnitude."
That figure is consistent with the 10 ppm difference in CO2 concentration between the peak Medieval Warm Period and the minimum Little Ice Age values, for a temperature differential of just under 1 degree C, ie, consistent with various proxy reconstructions. What must puzzle anyone paying attention to the data is why, if the MWP only caused a 10 ppm excursion in CO2 concentrations, why did the only slightly warmer (to date) modern warm period cause a 120 ppm excursion in CO2 concentration (to date)? -
Crispy at 18:13 PM on 15 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Thanks guyz. Partial pressure, Henry's Law, Archer et al and 'OA is not OK' parts one to eleventy-seven. I have my homework. -
MarkR at 17:39 PM on 15 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
18. keith , I haven't seen Salby's paper so I don't know. I'll be very surprised if it matches up with Bastardi's claims. Since that means he's breaking conservation of matter and that makes me (but apparently not Bastardi, Curry or Watts) very skeptical. 19. Crispy : for a very short answer, look up Henry's Law. Global temperatures have increased by 0.3% whilst partial pressure (related to concentration) has gone up 30%. It turns out that this pressure increase is enough to put plenty of CO2 into the oceans, which accounts for some of it. Without the increase in CO2 partial pressure (thanks to fossil fuel burning), the oceans would be taking up much less. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:30 PM on 15 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Crispy As far as I know there hasn't been a discussion of this specifically. The pre-indistrial carbon cycle was in a state of approximate dynamic equilibrium. The equilibrium is established by the various positive and negative feedbacks being balanced. If the system is peturbed, then the feedbacks will no longer be balanced, but in a way that tends to drive the system back to its equilibrium state. If that were not the case then the system would not have been equilibrium in the first place. In the case of the oceans, the carbon fluxes between ocean and atmosphere depend on temperature (higher temperatures -> more CO2 emission/less uptake) and the difference in partial pressures (more atmospheric CO2 -> less emissions/more uptake). So if temperatures increase, more CO2 is released from the first mechanism, but only until the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to more uptake from the second mechanism. That is why small temperature changes don't result in large CO2 emissions from the oceans. If atmospheric CO2 rises (e.g. due to anthropogenic emissions) then the additional greenhouse effect means that there is a bit more emission from the oceans, but this is dominated by the second mechansim, which reduces emissions because the greater CO2 concnetration in the atmosphere makes ocean uptake increase. I suspect the additional uptake is going into both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere, but it will be the oceans that ultimately do most of the work, as the capacity of the deep ocean is vast, but the rate at which carbon is moved from the surface ocean to deep ocean is slow. See this paper for details. -
Bern at 17:29 PM on 15 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
Crispy: re oceanic uptake, I recommend you read the "OA is not OK" article series on here - it's giving a thorough overview of how & why the oceans are taking up CO2 from the atmosphere. I also understand that some research is showing that, yes, there has been some increase in biomass in some areas, but it's small compared to the oceanic uptake. I think there are two main reason things have been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years: 1) natural climate change is quite a slow process, by human standards - the rise from the last glacial maximum, while rapid by geological timeframes, took on the order of 10,000 years, twice as long as all of recorded human history (which is ~5,000 years); 2) the natural factors that induce 'rapid' natural climate swings (~10,000 year ones!) haven't been present - the Earth's climate appears to have spent most of the past 10 millennia in a quasi-equilibrium state, although some reconstructions suggest there was a gradual cooling trend from a peak ~8,000 years ago, which we've managed to completely reverse in just 250 years (mostly in the past century, and half in the last three decades). -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:08 PM on 15 August 2011Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Dale While the natural carbon cycle does contain sources as well as sinks, the mass balance argument (presented numerous times here on SkS, in the IPCC WG1 reports and numerous peer reviewed papers) rules out the possibility that sources exceed sinks over the past fifty years beyond reasonable doubt. I have heard his podcast and he presented no argument that would refute the mass balance argument. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:07 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
And WOW! There is a second series of posts on projections! How soon? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:05 PM on 15 August 2011OA not OK part 16: Omega
Great series. The interesting figure here is Aragonite in the Pacific. Already at 1000 m and farely steep slope to the surface. This looks like where we will see problems first as the curve shifts left. How much do the curves vary within and around each basin? -
mandas at 16:28 PM on 15 August 2011Blaming nature for the CO2 rise doesn't add up
I'm confused. Don't denialists claim that the globe is cooling, or that - at the very least - temperatures have not increased over the past decade? If so, how come CO2 is increasing?
Prev 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 Next
