Recent Comments

Prev  2505  2506  2507  2508  2509  2510  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  Next

Comments 125601 to 125650:

125601. Theo Goodwin at 15:32 PM on 3 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Could someone please extend some charity to a philosopher and tell me what assumptions are made when direct measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations in Earth's atmosphere are made? For example, is it assumed that CO2 molecules are distributed randomly throughout Earth's atmosphere including the stratosphere? Or is there some reason to believe that CO2 particles collect mostly within the first mile or the first 8 miles or whatever of the Earth's atmosphere?
125602. From Peru at 12:14 PM on 3 January 2010
        The physical realities of global warming
        The graph posted in response to #10.WAG (26 November, 2009) is one of the best Global Warming Trend graph I ever seen. Now, how will be the graph INCLUDING 2009, that will surely be warmer than 2007 and 1998? As 2009 data would be the final piece in the grave of the "Global Cooling" nonsense, it should be e-mailed to all deniers inmediately after the December GISS and hadCRU are published. By by, Global Cooling!
125603. Berényi Péter at 09:48 AM on 3 January 2010
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        One more thing. If you have a closer look at the figure (Global Ocean Heat Storage 0-2000 m) you have shown us from von Schuckmann 2009, you may notice a considerable jump at the turn of 2006/2007. In just two months OHC went up by 8x10^7 J/m^2. It is huge. It requires some 15 W/m^2 surplus heat flux for an extended period (9 weeks). Even taking into account the error bars, it's 15 ± 6.5 W/m^2. It is 6% of the heat flux coming from the sun to the surface. If this much heat is transferred to the ocean, it would cool down the ENTIRE atmosphere by 8°C. In midwinter. And he says most of the marine heat gain occurred in the North Atlantic. If I had three legs it would not pass unnoticed.
125604. rafael at 09:27 AM on 3 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        sorry... Probably there are other causes of greater relevance than are being systematically ignored, not only by the scientific community, but by the IPCC, for example, rapidly growing trend of forest fires directly proportional to the exorbitant growth population in the world. Read news about a few months ago published: + http://www.cubanuestra.nu/web/article.asp?Artid=15784 More information on this site (by autor): + http://calentamientoglobalacelerado.net/alerta.htm
125605. Doug Cannon at 08:56 AM on 3 January 2010
        Models are unreliable
        "If this is the case, then the temperature record shown is a slight underestimate of actual warming..." Are you implying that IPCC uses temperature records that aren't published and we don't have access to? None of the surface air temperatures or the satellite temperature records that I'm aware of come close to showing the temperature increases in figure 1. Certainly HadCRUT reflects less than half the increase in figure 1.
        Response: "Are you implying that IPCC uses temperature records that aren't published?"
        
        Not at all. The IPCC TAR use the HadCRUT record, NCDC and NASA GISS. They just don't indicate which of these records are used in Figure 1 above. As for the trends in Figure 1, just eyeballing the graph, it looks like the trend in the last few decades is 0.2°C which is consistent with all three temperature records.
125606. Doug Cannon at 06:43 AM on 3 January 2010
        Models are unreliable
        The IPCC curves that you reproduce in figure 1 always looked wrong to me. Granted they're hard to read, but they show "observed" temperatures increasing much more than actual measurements from Hadcrut3, GISS,etc.....by a factor of 2-3 in some periods. e.g. 1975-2000. I think these were published in "Nature" years ago and I recall there was controversy about them then.
        Response: I'm having trouble determining which is the observed temperature record in Figure 1 as the IPCC TAR doesn't say which explicitly for that particular graph. I'm guessing it's the HadCRUT3 record as that seems to be the favoured record used throughout TAR. If this is the case, then the temperature record shown is a slight underestimate of actual warming as the HadCRUT record excludes some of the regions on earth that are warming the most.
125607. Patrick 027 at 16:47 PM on 2 January 2010
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        The RV anomaly doesn't cause anticyclonic circulation (in the totality of the flow anomaly of the PV anomaly) about the cyclonic PV anomaly but to some degree it spatially restricts the strength of the cyclonic circulation.
125608. Patrick 027 at 16:44 PM on 2 January 2010
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        NOTE I'm now using @ as a substitute partial derivative symbol for ease of typing and readability. Correction/clarification: For a reference frame that rotates with the planet (or star, etc.) u = x component of velocity v = y component of velocity For flow patterns along surfaces (in x,y,z coordinates, surfaces of constant z; otherwise, for x,y,p coordinates, surfaces of constant p (isobaric surfaces), or for x,y,q coordinates, where q is potential temperature, using surfaces of constant q (isentropic surfaces), and where 'vorticity' refers to the vertical component of the vorticity vector, the vorticity is equal to the sum (two horizontal dimensions) of variations over horizontal distances of the horizontal component of flow perpendicular to those direction; RV (relative vorticity) = @v/@x - @u/@y, f = planetary vorticity = the coriolis parameter = the vertical component of vorticity associated with planetary rotation, AV = absolute vorticity = RV + f where horizontal distances x and y are the horizontal components of distances along the surfaces within which the vorticity is being determined; when x and y are rotated so that the x direction is locally aligned with the flow, @v/@x becomes the orbital (curvature) vorticity (the vorticity associated with curvature of streamlines), and - @u/@y becomes the shear vorticity (the vorticity associated with changing the wind speed or direction across streamlines) For a pattern of flow that is like rigid solid-body rotation, @v/@x = - @u/@y = 1/2 * vorticity = shear vorticity = orbital (curvature) vorticity = angular velocity of rotation = angular frequency The circulation* (*not to be confused with the more general usage of the term) along a closed perimeter (the integral over length along the perimeter of the component of velocity locally parallel to the contour, taken to be positive in the counterclockwise direction) is equal to the integral of vorticity over the area enclosed. Circulation = line integral of (component of velocity parallel to the line in the counterclockwise direction) area-average vorticity = circulation/(area enclosed) If the perimeter follows a closed loop streamline (streamlines are parallel to the wind velocity), then the average of the counterclockwise speed over the length of the streamline is equal to the area-average of vorticity within the streamline multiplied by the area and divided by the length of the streamline. Circular streamlines will be centered on a circularly-symmetric vorticity field (which maintains symmetry out to infinitiy) if the flow is nondivergent (streamlines can only be assigned to a nondivergent component of the flow). For a circular streamline of radius r: Circulation = 2*pi*r * (circumference-average speed) = pi*r^2 * (area-average vorticity) (average speed) = r/2 * (average vorticity) Note that for two different closed-loops that completely envelope a region of nonzero vorticity which is surrounded by a zero vorticity field, the circulation about each loop is the same and hence the average speed (component along the loop) will vary among the loops in inverse proportion to loop length. Hence, the average speed about such loops which are circular is inversely proportional to the radii. If such circular loops are centered about a circularly-symmetricy vorticity field which goes to zero within a radius smaller than the loop radii (and remains at zero to infinity), then the loops are streamlines and the average speed on each loop is the speed at all points on each loop. Outside a circularly-symmetric region of nonzero vorticity, the orbital (curvature) vorticity and shear vorticity cancel each other. (There is a planetary circulation for planetary vorticiy, relative circulation ('circulation' by default) for RV, etc.) Linearly-superpositional vorticity fields and circulation values are associated with linearly-superpositional wind fields. Thus, if the total wind velocity = V1 + V2 ..., then the total RV = RV1 + RV2 ..., etc. Hence, any circularly-symmetric vorticity field has a set of concentric circular streamlines that are contours of that vorticity field's streamfunction (whether or not there are other nonzero vorticity fields at any location); the streamfunctions of multiple vorticity fields can be summed to find the total streamfunction. A particular component of a vorticity field can be called a vorticity anomaly, and a vorticity anomaly has a flow-pattern anomaly (streamfunction anomaly). Within a circular homogeneous RV anomaly, the anomaly flow pattern acts like rigid-body rotation. True that: 1. a point or homogeneous circular RV anomaly is mathematically associated with a wind anomaly which forms circular streamlines centered on the RV anomaly with wind speed being proportional to 1/r outside the RV anomaly, where r is the distance from the center (such a relationship has curvature/orbital vorticity same sign as the RV anomaly which is equal and opposite to the shear vorticity). AND for a homogenous RV anomaly along a line or constatn-wideth band, the velocity anomaly outside the line or band does not vary with distance from the line or band and is everywhere parallel to the line/band. HOWEVER (and this is where I may have made a mistake earlier): For a barotropic PV anomaly (with flat bottom topography) that is either a point-anomaly or has a 'hard edge' (as opposed to a sinusoidal or sufficiently-gradually tapered distribution (?), etc.), assuming geostrophic balance, the velocity field will generally have to decay in magnitude more rapidly with horizontal distance. This is because, for example, a cyclonic PV anomaly must have a low pressure anomaly associated with it. The pressure can't have a sharp jump within infinite geostrophic winds; thus, the pressure must decline gradually going towards the PV anomaly, even in the region of zero PV anomaly; this requires a RV anomaly of opposite sign to surround the PV anomaly (there will still generally be an RV anomaly of the same sign within the PV anomaly, and the circulation along closed loops (closure at infinity for infinite band/line PV anomaly) will still be cyclonic at any distance from the PV anomaly, but will decrease in strength outward from the PV anomaly due to the oppositely-signed RV anomaly required by geostrophic balance and a continuous pressure distribution. In the case of a baroclinic PV anomaly that is either a point or otherwise 'hard-edged' or not-sufficiently tapered, with limited extent vertically and horizontally, similar arguments apply. Along the isentropic surfaces that intersect the PV anomaly, for a cyclonic anomaly in geostrophic balance, the spacing between isentropes must decrease approaching the anomaly even outside the anomaly, so that there is a positive stability anomaly, which requires an anticyclonic RV anomaly outside a cyclonic PV anomaly in order for the PV anomaly to be zero outside the nonzero PV anomaly. Above and below a cyclonic PV anomaly in geostrophic balance, the isentrope spacing anomaly must be negative, requiring a cyclonic RV anomaly, as previously described. Qualitative arguments suggest a pattern with something like a conical shape with upper and lower cones that have vertices at/within the PV anomaly; outside the region of nonzero PV anomaly, for a cyclonic PV anomaly: within the cones, the stability anomaly is negative and the RV anomaly is cyclonic (as is generally the RV anomaly within the PV anomaly), while outside the cones, a ring of anticyclonic RV anomaly surrounds the PV anomaly along with a positive stability anomaly that generally extends through the PV anomaly. The RV anomaly doesn't cause anticyclonic circulation about the cyclonic PV anomaly but to some degree it spatially restricts the strength of the cyclonic circulation.
125609. From Peru at 15:49 PM on 2 January 2010
        Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
        I said: "this levels of C02-equivalent" with "this" I refer to the current ones, now near 450 ppm.
125610. From Peru at 15:46 PM on 2 January 2010
        Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
        What is dirturbing is that more than half of the greenhouse warming is masked by aerosols. This doesn't imply: 1) A climate sensitivity much bigger than the commonly assumed value of 3ºC per doubling of CO2, maybe 6-7ºC per doubling of CO2? 2)There is a lot of forcing (I said forcing,not warming) "in the pipeline" from the greenhouse gases, that will emerge as the aerosol emissions drop(these will be regulated before CO2 because them are highly toxic)? I suspect that the "Dangerous Antropogenic Influence" treshold was passed long ago, because according to paleoclimate studies, this levels of C02-equivalent are more than enough to melt away ALL GREENLAND, ALL THE MOUNTAIN GLACIERS AND THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET.
125611. AJ at 12:11 PM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Humanity rules wrote: "It's hard for me to understand how the rate of absorption can become reduced or the system become saturated. Common sense would say if you were looking at the movement of a substance from one fluid to another (atmosphere to ocean) then the larger the gradient (in this case caused by higher CO2 conc in the atmosphere) then the faster the diffusion of material." You're right about the second paragraph there but you just might be missing one important point. In order for the airborne factor to increase, the flux of CO2 to oceans etc. does not need to decrease. In order for AF to stay constant, the flux needs to increase at the same rate as emissions. Therefore, even if the flux of CO2 from atmosphere to the oceans etc. increases, but slower than the emissions, the AF will increase. Actually, mathematically a constant AF is exactly what you would expect, if you had exponentially growing emissions combined with sinks, whose rate is linearly proportional to the concentration.
125612. nofreewind at 11:09 AM on 2 January 2010
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        What about the CO2 reaching it's greenhouse saturation effect at a much lower level, and that much of the "worrying" is by taking into consideration amplification by high level water vapor? Many skeptics completely agree about the increased 20th century CO2 levels likely to be anthropogenic, but it is the "complete theory" of amplification which is hard for many to swallow? The increased heat will cause evaporation and increased water vapor, but the vapor will be high cirrus clouds resulting in greenhouse effect, and not low typical clouds which result in overall cooling.
        Response: Obviously, I can't hit all skeptic arguments in the one page (or can I?). This article is addressing the specific argument that humans aren't causing the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Those other arguments are addressed elsewhere:

        • CO2 effect is saturated
        • Negative feedbacks mean climate sensitivity is not as high (plus an overview of climate sensitivity)
125613. SNRatio at 09:00 AM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        John, maybe you should say something about the IPCC model forecasts re fraction of CO2 in atmosphere? It would also be interesting to learn more about the reason for the different estimated trends (1.2 vs 3 %/decade). Is it only because of Knorr using a longer time series for his modeling?
125614. mutatron at 07:19 AM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        FF, it's not necessary to measure emissions to know how much CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels, we only need to look at the accounting of fuel production. For example, we know that global oil production is about 31e9 bbl/year. From that we can calculate the amount of CO2, after taking into account the fraction of the oil going toward non-fuel purposes ( http://numero57.net/?p=255 ). It comes out to about 10e12 kg of CO2 per year produced by burning petroleum. Similar calculations can be made for coal and natural gas.
125615. Jim Eager at 07:13 AM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Wrong isotope, nfw, try 12C to 13C.
125616. nofreewind at 06:11 AM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Yes, there is another twist to this tale. Without looking into to too much right now, C14 which is created from fossil burning. Apparently it is able to be measured. I think I remember reading an article by Roy Spencer(big, important skeptic) questioning that research too! LOL. But that should be the next topic to explore. Back to the topic above. The Knorr paper concludes with "The hypothesis of a recent or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of the available data and its accuracy." Doesn't this mean they don't understand what is going on. It continues that they need to know more about land use, well I say what about CO2 changes in the ocean, which hold many times over the CO2 of the ocean. They can likely fairly estimate the man-made CO2, and then they just work backwards to fill n the number.
125617. Ian Forrester at 06:00 AM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        FF, have you never heard of carbon isotope ratios? This allows for identification of sources of CO2.
125618. Falafulu Fisi at 05:55 AM on 2 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Quote: ----- "[Fossil fuel combustion is calculated from international energy statistics. CO2 emissions from land-use changes are more difficult to estimate and come with greater uncertainty.]" Of course it should be very difficult, since CO2 molecules are identical and indistinguishable at that level of density therefore it behaves according to quantum statistics (particle indistinguishability of fermions and bosons) which deviates from classical maxwellian-boltzman particles which are distinguishable. Any claim to measure CO2 emission level from a specific source must be viewed with suspicion, since one cannot distinguish the CO2 that originated from source A or CO2 that originated from source B and so forth, since the particles are identical (statistical mechanics).
125619. Berényi Péter at 05:32 AM on 2 January 2010
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        I am sorry. It was not my intention to insult you personally. But there is one thing I firmly believe in. That's there is an ultimate reality. And there are also propositions that match this reality and if they do, they are called true statements. In other words truth does exist. Not just in our minds or discussions, but on its own right. This is why false statements like "the planet is continuously accumulating heat" "as observed by satellites" are annoying. For satellite measurements of energy flux imbalance are neither accurate nor precise. Let's be more specific. Satellite OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) measurements are fairly reliable. They may have a large systematic error, that is, they are inaccurate in your terms, but they are precise indeed in the sense that random errors are limited. So they are good for determining trends, but nothing else. As derived from various satellite data there is a consistent 0.12 W/m^2 yearly decrease in OLR since 2003. In other words the effective temperature of Earth as seen from the outside has dropped by about 0.15°C during this six year period. Of course it does not mean much and it is especially loosely related to average surface temperature. However, effective temperature itself is a well-defined concept, even if it is too abstract for most practical purposes (it is the temperature of a uniformly heated black body having the same outgoing thermal radiation energy flux as the object considered). The absolute value is somewhere between -15°C and -19°C, depending on the season, the particular satellite set used and method calculated. On the other hand ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation) as measured by satellites is not even precise. The reason is that reflected sunlight has a very complex spectral, spatiotemporal and angular distribution, and both satellite coverage and spectral resolution of measurement are insufficient to capture it precisely. If we knew both solar constant variations and outgoing radiation from earth for the entire spectrum and all spatial directions with sufficient precision, it would be easy to calculate the energy balance. But as for now, the noise, mainly from spatiotemporal and angular undersampling at higher frequencies is so huge, that the energy balance of earth is not measured this way in any reasonable sense. If anything can be said about the short wave reflectance history of earth, it is that it's fairly stable in this period (within measurement error bounds). At the same time solar constant is slightly decreasing due to an extended low in solar cycle, so one can not say that the rate earth gained or lost energy has changed significantly. Of course it does not say anything about the possible initial offset between OLR and ASR at TOA, but that's exactly my point. The energy imbalance is NOT measured by satellites. Climate model predictions are also unfeasible for calibrating offset errors in energy balance measurements. The whole point of measuring imbalance is to verify models in the first place, isn't it? We are left with OHC, can forget both satellites and models. Here is a preprint of the von Schuckmann paper: http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/49437/368494/file/VonSchukmann_et_al_2009_inpress.pdf I have two problems with it. 1. Why could not he give OHC estimates for the 0-700 m subset as well? This way his results would be directly comparable to NODC estimates. As it is, one wonders what physical mechanism can transfer so much heat below 700 meters without even touching the strata in between? Weird. 2. I don't like graphs where all the error bars are of exactly the same size. Number of Argo floats grew fourfold during the period 2003-2007. Coverage have had also improved. It would imply error bars shrinking approximately half their original size. However, the vertical line segments on the figure look more like uniform ornaments. Schuckmann does not elaborate much on these problems in the text either. It's also remarkable that until recently in parts of the ocean where stratification, hence density difference between the surface and 2000 m depth level was too large, Argo floats could not make profiling of the entire water column, so they were programmed to go no deeper than 1000 meters (otherwise they could not return to the surface). New models can perform better on a slightly increased cost. What it actually means is that 0-2000 m OHC estimate is considerably less accurate for this time period than 0-700 m estimates. There is also an aging problem with the pressure sensors. An ever increasing number of floats report negative pressure at the surface, up to 30% of them by now. Schuckmann also fails to mention these arcane details. You can read more about float problems in Argonautics #10 (July 2008), pp 7. Profiling to 2000 m Anywhere in the World Ocean: Advances with APEX Floats Stephen C. Riser, University of Washington http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Argonautics10.pdf
125620. SLRTX at 05:27 AM on 2 January 2010
        Skeptical Science housekeeping: Translations and Comments Feed
        John and Ari, Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't sure how well Google translator worked.
125621. Tom Dayton at 03:30 AM on 2 January 2010
        It's cosmic rays
        Mizimi, it doesn’t matter what the purported mechanism of GCRs’ effect is--water vapor, cloud formation, or anything else. Once the changes in GCR level stopped (i.e., GCR level became constant), the resulting energy imbalance of the Earth must “immediately” have started to shrink as the Earth “immediately” started to heat and therefore radiate more to match the new, now constant, level of GCR--regardless of whether the GCR effect occurs via some additional mechanisms involving water vapor, and regardless of whether the higher level of GCR amplifies the effect of increased water vapor. But the Earth’s energy imbalance has not been shrinking. It has continued to grow, which means the cause of the imbalance has continued to grow, which means the cause cannot still be GCR, because GCR has been constant for half a century. It is impossible for the effect to lag this long. This is the same reason the effect of solar radiance’s increase up to the 1950s cannot lag this long. The same argument applies to any factor once it stops changing.
125622. Ian Love at 00:56 AM on 2 January 2010
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        Thanks John for a nice site! nofreewind evidently reckons that the vast majority of climate scientists are either incompetent or conspirators. Somehow s/he reckons the "most important foundations" and graphs "critical to acceptance of AGW" are readily 'deconstructed' or could be shown by him/her to be erronious. But not so: the errors belong to nofreewind - and there are many independent items of evidence of AGW (read the basic pages on this site, or on Prof Mandia's site . As John calmly points out, the airborne fraction is from observations - and the GC models cited in the IPPC reports look at many years for comparisons, from physical principles, not by "fit(ting) one year". If there is one basic foundation to AGW, perhaps it is the observation that atmospheric CO2 levels are steadily increasing, along with global human output (plus the 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratios) - and no respectable scientist would gainsay that. That the estimates of carbon fluxes from natural processes are uncertain is unimportant - the evident perturbations of the dynamic equilibrium by human activity are indisputable - and worrying.
125623. Alexandre at 10:23 AM on 1 January 2010
        It's cosmic rays
        Recently I watched a lecture by Dr. Richard Alley, at the AGU (link below). He mentions a "Muschler et al. 2005" paper, with a very neat graph showing a distinct spike in cosmic rays during the Laschamp event some 40 thousand years ago, with no corresponding change in temperature at the same time. I could not find the paper, though. Could anyone help? (relevant part at 42:10 min) http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
125624. dhogaza at 09:51 AM on 1 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        

        On a lighter note: Happy New Year to all of you. Be safe tonight.

        Remember that when driving, just as with climate, rate of change (in this case, of velocity) *does* matter.
125625. Disclaimed at 06:29 AM on 1 January 2010
        CO2 has been higher in the past
        Chris thank you for that excellent response. It seems apparent that past CO2 levels were driven by tectonism. Might be a little premature to assume the sole driver of extinction was climate response, but it's certainly plausible. I hear a lot about what makes CO2 go up. But isn't an understanding of what forces lower CO2 equally important? What are the mechanisms that make the CO2 drop? If it's falling temperature, what is causing the drop in temperature, and I'm speaking about over the Phanerozoic, not recent glaciation cycles?
        Response: This is an excellent question. A process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere is rock weathering - where chemical process convert CO2 in the air into other chemicals. This process takes thousands of years. However, rock weathering activity increases in higher temperatures (Walker 1981). This acts as a natural thermostat on climate. As the earth gets hotter, CO2 is scrubbed out of the atmosphere by the accelerated rock weathering and CO2 levels drop.
        
        On the downside, this process happens over geological scales so natural rock weathering isn't a short term solution. On the up-side, there is research into using artificially accelerated rock weathering to sequester carbon dioxide from coal plants (Kelemen 2008).
125626. Jim Eager at 03:08 AM on 1 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Humanity Rules @2: Again it seems unlikely that this system has been tipped over the edge by humanity insignificant input (0.025%). Cumulative human additions of C to the active carbon cycle since the pre-industrial era have been around 329Gt (C only). [CDIAC] That would be .766% of total C in the active carbon cycle, not .025%.
125627. Lou Grinzo at 02:31 AM on 1 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        John: Nice treatment of an easily misunderstood (cough cough) topic. I'm constantly amazed by the steps "some people" will take to leap to a conclusion (i.e. the "therefore it must be zero" thing you mentioned).
125628. ppnl at 00:08 AM on 1 January 2010
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        If half of the carbon we produce is absorbed and as I remember about half of what we produce is from burning coal does that mean that if we stop burning coal the atmospheric carbon will begin to decline? Also is it possible that any reduction of carbon uptake by the ocean is a result of higher temperatures rather than saturation?
125629. Ari Jokimäki at 20:17 PM on 31 December 2009
        Skeptical Science housekeeping: Translations and Comments Feed
        I have tried Google Translator a bit, and it doesn't seem to produce much understandable Finnish. Finnish language is quite difficult for such automatic translators. It could be used to get a draft translation which would then be corrected manually, but I'm not sure if that would be better or faster method than direct manual translation.
125630. HumanityRules at 20:02 PM on 31 December 2009
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        It's hard for me to understand how the rate of absorption can become reduced or the system become saturated. Common sense would say if you were looking at the movement of a substance from one fluid to another (atmosphere to ocean) then the larger the gradient (in this case caused by higher CO2 conc in the atmosphere) then the faster the diffusion of material. In terms of the sinks becoming saturated. We known the biosphere is absorbing more CO2 through evidence of he greening of the planet. This may be only trivial anyway, it seems the ocean is likely the greatest store of carbon according to this quote "It [the oceans] already contains an estimated 40,000 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) compared with only 750 GtC in the atmosphere and 2,200 GtC in the terrestrial biosphere (IPCC, 1996)." http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/overview.PDF Again it seems unlikely that this system has been tipped over the edge by humanity insignificant input (0.025%). This analysis does assume that the natural CO2 cycle has been in perfect equilibrium over this whole period of time. The need for correction for ENSO and volcanos suggests there isn't a steady natural state but a dynamic process. Can you imagine more so far unidentified factors which might be affecting this analysis?
125631. Steve L at 14:22 PM on 31 December 2009
        Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
        Brief comment, I got tripped up looking at the above (10 gigatonnes) and referring back to the previous post (29 gigatonnes). I'm sure this is due to carbon being weighed here versus carbon dioxide being weighed in the previous post. I was also tripped up by the quotation from AR4: "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate... since 1958." That's kind of confusing because the growth rate of CO2 is increasing. I guess all I'm trying to say is that even this relatively straightforward stuff can be confusing if one isn't careful when reading it.
125632. jamesprescott at 09:04 AM on 31 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        John, you may want to add a note on volcanic CO2 here just to show how it compares to the rest of the CO2 system. Probably just a text note since .3Gton/yr isn't really going to show up on the graphics.
125633. ExLoony at 06:46 AM on 31 December 2009
        Was there a Medieval Warm Period?
        Griffon1, some of the proxy records have decadal resolution or better for the MWP. Of course the MWP is long ago and our proxies cannot be as accurate as direct measurements we can make today, so some warmer periods might have existed. All we can say is the observations of the MWP do not give evidence to believe it was as warm as today.
125634. Mizimi at 06:26 AM on 31 December 2009
        It's cosmic rays
        "The bottom line is even if these difficulties can be resolved and the causality link between cosmic rays and cloud formation is proven, all they'll find is the cloud formation 50 years ago is similar to now and has had little to no impact on the last 30 years of long term global warming." Not so; as I posted somewhere else on this site there are 2 factors here - cosmic radiation and water vapour. If CR remains essentially the same you can still increase cloud formation if WV concentration increases. Temperature rises from CO2 increases are 'amplified' by increased WV according to AGW hypothesis - which is confirmed to be ocurring in the lower troposhere by direct measurement. Work by the Danes has shown that CR's act more like a catalyst in that single particles can cause many nucleation events, so the effect becomes SO2/WV dependant if CR level is constant. There is a link to the website of the Danish Technical University on the page "Do cosmic rays cause clouds?" (#40) "Set loose by cosmic rays passing through the atmosphere, the electrons attach themselves to fragile clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules. Their electric charges stabilize the clusters while more molecules join them. When the molecular clusters are big enough, the electrons can leave them in a stable state, and go off to encourage other clusters to grow. In other words, the electrons act as catalysts, which promote chemical action while remaining unchanged themselves. A single electron can make many attempts to grow clusters, even though it will fail if it leaves too soon. "
125635. guinganbresil at 03:28 AM on 31 December 2009
        There's no empirical evidence
        The section "CO Traps Heat" is suffering from a logical fallacy of Composition: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html The assertion is made that increasing CO2 and other GHG's absorb more long wave radiation and prevent it from escaping to space. This is well supported by Harries 2001 Figure 3C. Clearly assertion this is supported by both theory and measurement. The fallacy comes into play when applying this to the WHOLE of the outgoing long wave spectrum. Looking at Harries 2001 Figure 1B (not shown), the range 800-1000 cm-1 shows an increase in outgoing long wave that exceeds the decrease due to GHG's. This observation is also present in Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007. Harries 2001 attributes this increase over the range 800-1000 cm-1 to 'small residual ice crystals' not fully removed from the data due to field of view differences between the detectors. This assertion is not supported by the addition of the NASA AIRS satellite. Additionally, satellite measurements of total outgoing long wave radiation show an increasing trend with time (and CO2, although not causative). http://www.isprs.org/publications/related/ISRSE/html/papers/332.pdf This is critical because it calls into question the causative relationship between "CO2 traps heat" and "Our planet is accumulating heat" in the block diagram. This relationship must be solid if the alarming predictions of the climate science community are to be believed and the mitigation of climate change can be achieved through CO2 emission reduction.
125636. SLRTX at 03:06 AM on 31 December 2009
        Skeptical Science housekeeping: Translations and Comments Feed
        John, You may have tried this already, but have you looked into Google translator? It translates the entire site for the reader. If you use WordPress, there's a widget you can install. I use it on my site. It has a Finnish translator. http://translate.google.com/#
        Response: If the results from Google Translator when I use them to translate other languages into English are any indication, it's not the most reliable of translators. It gives you the general gist but you get a lot of weird phrasings. I guess there's no substitute for human translation.
125637. stephan linn at 02:10 AM on 31 December 2009
        Could CFCs be causing global warming?
        Thanks for the update, and I also appreciate the tone of this site.
125638. Mizimi at 01:59 AM on 31 December 2009
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        #27...surely in order for the ocean depths to warm, the surface water must do so first and then be mixed with deeper layers. This surface warming should be apparent unless you are saying the heat is transported more or less instantaneously (in climate terms)??
125639. h-j-m at 00:30 AM on 31 December 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        "Anthropogenic use of water is less than 1% of natural sources of water vapor..." Thus starts a paragraph about water vapor to state somewhat later: "Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources of tropospheric water vapor is not evaluated here ..." How can some one come to the conclusion we are dealing with science here. By the way these statements are taken from the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report.
125640. David Horton at 16:26 PM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        Thanks for this John, very clear and neat. It has increasingly seemed to me that the genuine skeptics are really focused on just this issue. Ok, they are saying, we will grant you CO2 is a GHG, and we grant you humans are pumping it out, but what you people fail to understand is that good old mother nature will take care of it for us by absorbing the excess CO2 and doing something with it. As your graph clearly shows, this is not the case, and with land clearance, forest stress due to drought and high temps, and changes to oceans, the absorption of the excess is likely to decrease even as the rate of pumping out increases. Thank you for all your efforts in 2009, and may 2010 be a more hopeful year for us all.
125641. Berényi Péter at 14:38 PM on 30 December 2009
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        John, you miss the point. It's rather irrelevant if Trenberth is believing in "global warming" or not. To be sure, he apparently does not believe in the possibility of radiation budget imbalances on the order of 6.4 W/m^2 like you do. For this is what's "observed by satellites". But his alternative, "the TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models" is in no way better. It implies "correcting" the (mis)measured imbalance according to a model, then certifying the model by the imbalance found. Bit circular. It turns out however, that TOA energy imbalance can be and is measured after all. By Argo floats, not satellites. http://wo.jcommops.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Argo http://www.bodc.ac.uk/projects/international/argo/project_overview/ Indirectly, of course. It's elementary thermodynamics. Global OHC (Ocean Heat Content) "anomaly" should be nearly proportional to the time integral of the "TOA energy imbalance" (integrating incoming and outgoing flux difference for an epoch on the surface of the globe, that is). Both specific heat of water and its quantity on Earth are enormous. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ You can see on the NODC site that OHC is flat for the last five years. It also happens to be the time interval we have reliable data. For Argo coverage only reached a reasonable level at the end of 2003 (and was completed by 2007). Earlier "measurements" of OHC are guesswork. Flat OHC means zero imbalance. Incoming SW radiation is equal to OLR. No trapping. It's easy to see why. As atmospheric CO2 concentration goes up, upper troposphere gets drier (documented), overall IR optical depth constant. No "greenhouse effect". Models predicting imbalance are disqualified. Trenberth, unlike you, knows his stuff. He is referring to Argo findings. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." The only problem is that he failed to put this fact into a press release. He dared not. Theor Appl Climatology DOI 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data Garth Paltridge & Albert Arking & Michael Pook Received: 21 July 2008 / Accepted: 4 February 2009 http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf "it is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be "written off" simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models" That's it.
        Response: The planet's energy imbalance obviously isn't 6.4 W/m² - it's more of the order of around 0.85 W/m². Satellite measurements have low accuracy but high precision. In other words, they display a high uncertainty in the absolute value of the radiation budget but stronger precision in year to year variability. So the satellite data is constrained - either by climate models or by ocean heat data (or both) in order to calculate the absolute energy imbalance.
        
        So it's correct that the energy imbalance can be determined through the measurement of ocean heat. Note that the ocean heat figures you're refering to at the NODC site refers to ocean heat down to 700 metres depth. However, upper ocean heat content is subject to short term variability due to the exchange of heat between the upper waters and deeper regions. A more comprehensive analysis of the Argo data can be found in Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008 (von Schuckmann 2009) which constructs a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres. It finds a significant positive energy imbalance of 0.77 W/m²:
        
        
        Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 10⁸ Jm^-2.
        
        Lastly, please refrain from personal insults in future comments.
125642. nofreewind at 12:49 PM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        >The airborne fraction is calculated from observations, not theory or models. Specifically, it's calculated from the total amount of human CO2 emissions and the measured amount of atmospheric CO2. Of course, unless I'm missing something big. I assume that CO2 growth rate is simply total CO2 growth rate and does not differentiate btw human vs natural. I was just saying an eyeball look tells me CO2 rose by a large amt during the El Nino, which correlates with natural temp.'s more than a human effect, and that 1990 CO2 growth rate decreased during a year when it appear global temps decreased. Also, why isn't the growth rate steady, if it is because man-made. Most of the times the science discussed here is over my head, but this appears to be a topic I can understand with simple common sense. And it is one of the most important foundations to the AGW theory/consensus.
125643. nofreewind at 12:44 PM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        Here is where much of that IPPC AR4 diagram comes from, the first reference. Prentice et al (to keep your website tidy I used a link generator) Look at the big diagram on page 5 developed from tables on page 10. Remember what I said about the Pennsylvania Forests 2004 report, the forest stand size grew 33% in 9 years? Did the IPCC know that, how about the thousands of other different forests in the world that may have responded to CO2 increase and temp increase differently, add to that the rate of vegetation decay and the incalculable ocean temperature gradients, all those are just a start! Unfortunately you didn't deconstruct anything in this post. AND that graph is critical to acceptance of AGW "theory", and it is quite easily deconstructed, even by a complete amateur as myself. But of course, only a very small percentage of even scientific type even know about the Carbon Cycle just take it as face value as accepted consensus, when it is a backward working theory to fit a preconceived model.
125644. nofreewind at 12:27 PM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        >The amount of CO2 being absorbed by nature hasn't been a fixed amount in gigatonnes. Instead, it seems to be closer to a fixed percentage (with interannual variability of course). As human emissions increased, the amount of CO2 being absorbed also increased. John, that is all 100% complete "theory". There is no way to prove or disprove that. However, you can easily create a model and work backwords...and make everything fit. We KNOW there has been a global temp increase since 1850. We KNOW that warming oceans release more CO2, whre does that fit in the model? It doesn't have to of course, if you are just creating a model to fit one year in time, like the IPPC AR4. Look at Trends in CO2. CO2 annual growth Maybe just a coincidence, but look at 1998 on right scroll bar. 1998 was the highest CO2 annual growth rate, it also was the large increase in temp, and isn't the El Nino because the oceans release extra heat? Look at 1992, wasn't that a year of crashing global temperatures? 1990-2009 The CO2 growth rate is way down. Certainly man is causing CO2 increase of some sort in the atmosphere, but what about the oceans? Each single degree of ocean temp will have a rate of CO2 exchage, surely I respect the IPCC when they state that that the flux estimations can be off by 20%!!! We only need it to be off by 1 or 2 % in one system and the entire model of man-effect is essentially nonsense. This is something that should be "modeled", but certainly we can't place the entire world in shackles and move our modern society back to the stone age on a theory. Reminds me of 1999! The entire world moved their pensions and savings into the stock market, it seemed like a no loose proposition. Models were created by Harvard geniuses, we couldn't loose. Same with the fancy mortgage derivatives. The common man always looses and my Grandma Susie with her CD.'s, who couldn't even find the business page, was the winner.
        Response: The airborne fraction is calculated from observations, not theory or models. Specifically, it's calculated from the total amount of human CO2 emissions and the measured amount of atmospheric CO2. For more info, see Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels
125645. Jim Eager at 10:08 AM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        nofreewind, re 8Gt vs 29Gt, the first is the measure of just the C in CO2 (the more common convention), the second is the measure of the the C plus the O2. In other words, they are the same quantity by different metrics. (Just multiply 8 x 44/12.) Re the apparent contradiction of figures 1 & 2 by 3, you might want to check the work of William Ruddiman. CO2 and CH4 should have been on a downward track ever since the Holocene Climate Optimum of 8000 to 6000 years ago, but instead, both began slowly rising as figure 3 shows. The reason? Ruddiman points out that humans began adding CO2, CH4 and NO2 to the atmosphere when we developed agriculture and that addition really took off with the domestication of rice and the widespread creation of man-made wetlands. Ruddiman also postulates that the absorption of CO2 by reforestation in Europe and then the Americas in the wake of large scale reductions in human populations due to epidemics may have been a factor in the cooling of the Little Ice Age.
125646. nofreewind at 09:40 AM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        John, I find your blog to be an authoritative source of sensible AGW arguments, but I don't understand how figure 3 is related to figure 1 & 2. In fact if you look deeper into the issue Figure 3 contradicts Fig 1/2. You come up with 29 Gt of man-made CO2 from fossil/land use change. I am confused, shouldn't that be 6.4 + 1.6 = 8.0 Gt? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html This figure shows the scale a little better. http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/co2_global_1750-2000.jpg But, nevertheless, the caption states "Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20% ". What that means is the carbon cycle numbers are complete estimates, likely the amt of CO2 from fossil burning is the most accurate of the estimates. Here is deconstruction of your argument in considering the Global Carbon Cycle as something more than an estimate. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/rb_nrs20.pdf slow loader Go to page 19 (22) You will see that Stand-Size of Pa forests increased by 33% btn 1994 and 2005. WOW, that's good, likely helped along because of increased feeding from CO2. This kind of land use change is occurring throughout the entire world. This stand-size increase of 33% likely resulted in enormous changes in CO2 feeding, and more vegetation decay. Scientists should make best estimate guesses to this process, but as stated in the caption, "gross fluxes have uncertainties of +-20%". We know the IPCC states that about 50% of man-made CO2 is taken back in by the oceans/land use, but in reality, that is "working backwards" to fit their models that man is responsible for the measured CO2 increase. It can not be anything but working backwards to fit their climate model of AGW warming and CO2 increase. Then of course, if half of the 8 Gt (or even your 29Gt) is taken by by natural processes, then we have to think, why did CO2 rise when man was putting out only 4Gt or 29Gt? So if the oceans/land behaved in the same way, we would not have had any atmospheric CO2 rise until we reached the 1/2 threshold of where we are today? To read a better explanation of how this is all theory and working backwards I recommend googling, reading and studying, CO2 - The Houdini of Gases. So my interpretation is that if man is making 7 Gt of CO2 now, and nature takes back approx 1/2 or 3.5 Gt, it wasn't until about 1960 that man made 3.5 Gt so there should have been NO RISE in atmospheric CO2 until about 1960. Also, sorry for not formatting links, but is there an easier way to make a link here w/o using html formatting which i find cumbersome?
        Response: Apologies for the confusion - I'm specifically refering to 29 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. When discussing the carbon cycle, the IPCC use the weight of carbon, not carbon dioxide. I've noticed some depictions of the carbon cycle use carbon, others use carbon dioxide - I decided to use carbon dioxide as I thought it would be less confusing. Bad call! I explain the process of converting carbon weight to carbon dioxide weight here.
        
        The amount of CO2 being absorbed by nature hasn't been a fixed amount in gigatonnes. Instead, it seems to be closer to a fixed percentage (with interannual variability of course). As human emissions increased, the amount of CO2 being absorbed also increased. Figure 7.4 in the IPCC AR4 shows a graph of the fraction of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere (‘airborne fraction’) since 1958 (the thick black line is the 5 year mean). Note that over this period, CO2 emissions have greatly increased:
        
        
125647. Jim Eager at 09:37 AM on 30 December 2009
        A visual deconstruction of a skeptic argument
        Re John's inline comment to RSVP, I think you have the absorbed vs remaining fractions reversed. Shouldn't that be 55% absorbed by the biosphere and ocean, with 45% remaining in the atmosphere? In other words, human emissions of CO2 account for around 220% of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 -- 100% of the increase, plus another 120% that is absorbed. Or to look at it another way, the biosphere, ocean, and geologic weathering absorb 100% of natural emissions, PLUS 55% of human emissions.
125648. Steve L at 08:27 AM on 30 December 2009
        1998 is not the hottest year on record
        NP @24 -- I haven't looked at the NASA estimates for Angola over the last 27 years. Hopefully you can ask someone who might know why there's a persistent anomaly there, or at least someone who will confirm your finding.
125649. Mizimi at 06:00 AM on 30 December 2009
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        #25...a review of Ceres data product can be found here and here "In general, heat storage, solar insolation, and TOA SW reflected flux dominate the systematic errors. Almost all systematic errors appear as planetary heating in the global net balance. Some of the errors like diurnal sampling biases await final confirmation using combined global 1030 Terra, 130 Aqua, as well as 3-hourly and 1-hourly geostationary data sources for SW fluxes, and GERB 30-minute broadband data from METEOSAT for SW and LW flux diurnal cycles. When all errors are combined, CERES Terra SRBAVG Edition2 non-GEO global Net flux is 6.9 Wm-2 versus a predicted range of 1.3 to 6.1 Wm-2. The ERBE-like global net flux is 3.8 Wm-2 versus a predicted range of -3.1 to 1.7 Wm-2. The less accurate ERBE-like global net flux comes closer to zero. The reason, however, is not more accurate TOA fluxes, but fortuitous cancellation of errors of opposite sign. The ultimate goal is of course to get the right answer for the right physical reasons. For example, the improved CERES angular dependence models improve the accuracy of the equator to pole gradient of reflected SW fluxes, especially in polar regions. Now why do I not feel confident about quoted figures for TOA radiation budgets??
125650. NewYorkJ at 04:50 AM on 30 December 2009
        Could CFCs be causing global warming?
        Couldn't the same line of lousy reasoning (not sure how a reviewer could miss that) be used to declare "global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of methane...", which rose raipdly through the 80's and 90's and has been mostly flat over the past decade (increasing only recently)? But...both can't be "dominant".

Prev  2505  2506  2507  2508  2509  2510  2511  2512  2513  2514  2515  2516  2517  2518  2519  2520  Next