Runaway greenhouse after 2550
Jay Hanson
for Climate Change. It's a VERY strong story. In-depth information on
the study can be found on their web site at:
<http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>.
Steve Pedery
steve....@sierraclub.org
World's biggest super-computer predicts runaway greenhouse effect that
will bring drought, deserts and disease in its wake
By Paul Brown
Guardian (london) Tuesday November 3, 1998
Large swathes of the planet will be plunged into misery by climate
change in the next 50 years, with many millions ravaged by hunger, water
shortages and flooding, according to evidence published yesterday.
Findings from Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change presented to
170 countries in Buenos Aires show that parts of the Amazon rain
forest will turn into desert by 2050, threatening the world with an
unstoppable greenhouse effect.
The startling findings are the result of billions of calculations made
by the world's biggest super-computer, installed at the Hadley Centre
in Berkshire. The latest figures show the earth is heating up fast,
with 1998 already the hottest year since reliable records began
140 years ago.
Among the findings are:
* Land temperatures will go up 6C by the end of the next century.
* The number of people on the coast subject to flooding each year
will rise from 5 million now to 100 million by 2050 and 200 million by
2080.
* Another 30 million people will be hungry in 50 years because it
will be too dry to grow crops in large parts of Africa.
* An extra 170 million people will live in countries with extreme
water shortages.
* Malaria, one of the world's most dread diseases, will threaten
much larger areas of the world - including Europe - by 2050.
The new predictions include far better representations of ocean
currents, which drive the world's climate. The Gulf Stream, which is
important for warming Britain in the winter, will be 20 per cent less
strong in the future but Europe will still warm considerably.
Western Europe, including Scotland, will gain the ability to grow
extra grain, but the storms of the past few weeks will be typical of
the more extreme weather conditions the country can expect.
The impact on food supply will be particularly bad for Africa and the
United States. The whole of central and southern Africa will have
reduced ability to grow staple crops, but in world political terms the
adverse affects on the US prairies is likely to prove very important.
Droughts and extra heat leading to evaporation means that wheat and
maize yields will drop up to 10 per cent. Since the vast surplus
of the US wheat belt is important to the country's wealth and its
hold on world food supplies, this prediction will be bad news for
the White House.
The US stands accused of holding up talks designed to reduce the
world's output of carbon dioxide, so it is ironic that on the first
day of the two-week meeting in Argentina the latest models show
that the US will be among the countries most severely affected.
Canada, on the other hand, will see wheat production increase by
2.5 per cent. The Canadian forests will extend northwards into
what is now tundra.
Perhaps the most startling finding is the prospect of a runaway
greenhouse effect after 2050. It has been thought that the speed
of global warming would be moderated by the extra growth in plants
and trees made possible because of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. This carbon dioxide fertiliser effect stimulates plants
to grow faster.
The latest information shows that this benefit will be lost in 2050
because of lack of rainfall in key areas. Worst affected will be
northern Brazil, where the Amazon rain forest will turn into desert,
and the eastern United States. Parts of southern Europe will
become virtual deserts at the same time.
Many tropical grasslands will also be transformed into deserts,
leading to widespread extinction of wildlife.
The rise in global sea level will be 21cm (3.2in) by 2050. The coasts
of the southern Mediterranean, Egypt, west and east Africa,
south and south-east Asia are most vulnerable. The islands of the
Caribbean, Indian and Pacific Oceans, some only a few feet above
sea level, are at risk of being overwhelmed during storms.
Increased warmth leads to a dramatic rise in the number of malaria
cases where the disease is already endemic. It is already spreading
north - Italy had an outbreak last year - and is expected to reach the
Baltic by 2050. Although parts of Britain are already warm enough
for the mosquitoes that carry the lesser Vivax malaria, no infection
has so far reached these shores. The more dangerous P. falciparum
form needs warmer temperatures but conditions will be right for it
within 50 years over large parts of Europe.
The problem for doctors is that in 60 per cent of the world where
malaria is currently unknown populations have little or no immunity
to the disease and an epidemic could cause high death rates in adults
and children.
Michael Meacher, the environment minister who is going to Argentina,
said: "These are sobering findings. Millions of people will have life
made miserable by climate change, with increased risk of hunger,
water shortages and extreme events like flooding. Combating climate
change is the greatest challenge of human history."
Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
Don Libby
>
> Story from the London Daily Guardian on a new study by the Hadley Center
> for Climate Change. It's a VERY strong story. In-depth information on
> the study can be found on their web site at:
>
> <http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>.
In the interest of keeping our facts straight, the information at this
site is not "in-depth" it is cursory, and the study concerns the period
from 2050 to 2100, not 2550 as Jay stated in the subject line.
Letter to Dr Geoff Jenkins, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research, The Met. Office:
gjje...@meto.gov.uk
Dear Dr. Jenkins,
I read with interest the summary of Hadley Center GCM impact projections
posted at http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html
I was dismayed to find so little documentation of the input assumptions,
however. In particular, would you please provide a reference for what
you call the "IPCC 'business as usual'" scenario.
I was under the impression that among the six IS92 non-policy emissions
scenarios reviewed in _Climate Change 1994_, none was considered a
"business as usual" scenario, although IS92a comes closest to an
extrapolation of (then current) trends. Is your definition of "IPCC
'business as usual'" the same as IS92a?
In preparation for its _Special Report on Emissions Scenarios_ WGIII is
currently engaged in an open process for emissions scenario construction
and they have so far identified four major scenario "story lines" with a
large number of variations on these themes - none of which has been
designated "business as usual" (see http://sres.ciesin.org/).
In summary, I am simply asking for a reference, preferably Internet URLs
or page numbers in _Climate Change 1995_ or _Climate Change 1994_ where
I can find documentation of the GHG emissions scenario that your report
refers to as "IPCC 'business as usual'" .
Thank you for your attention,
Sincerely,
Donald L. Libby, PhD
Associate Scientist
Network for Health Policy Research
University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School
-dl
cc:
sci.econ,sci.energy,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
--
****************************************
* NOTE: RETURN ADDRESS MAY BE DISABLED *
* IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE REPLYING *
* REPLACE "NOSPAM" WITH "DONLIBBY" *
* IN THE "TO" ADDRESS LINE *
****************************************
charliew
Don Libby wrote in message <3644A0...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Story from the London Daily Guardian on a new study by the Hadley Center
>> for Climate Change. It's a VERY strong story. In-depth information on
>> the study can be found on their web site at:
>>
>> <http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>.
>
>In the interest of keeping our facts straight, the information at this
>site is not "in-depth" it is cursory, and the study concerns the period
>from 2050 to 2100, not 2550 as Jay stated in the subject line.
>
>Letter to Dr Geoff Jenkins, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
>Research, The Met. Office:
>gjje...@meto.gov.uk
>
>Dear Dr. Jenkins,
>
>I read with interest the summary of Hadley Center GCM impact projections
>posted at http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html
>
>I was dismayed to find so little documentation of the input assumptions,
>however. In particular, would you please provide a reference for what
>you call the "IPCC 'business as usual'" scenario.
>
My guess for the definition of "business as usual": try various starting
assumptions in your computer model, until you arrive at the answer you are
looking for. Then, publish this "gloom and doom" scenario in an effort to
attract more funding for your research. Naturally, as the research
continues, it is easy to establish a correlation between funding and the
"gloominess" and "doominess" of the numbers you are publishing, which leads
to ever more dire predictions.
James G. Acker
:
: Don Libby wrote in message <3644A0...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
Charlie W.,
I'd be surprised if this is the case. I'll be very interested
in the reply Dr. Libby receives. But I'll make a prediction --
IPCC "business as usual" extrapolates the current rate of rise of
GHG into the future with no significant change in rate.
Alternatively, the "business as usual" scenario has a basic
per capita rate (per person) of GHG emission that is economically-based.
They may then predict an increase in GHG emission as nations such
as India and China become more industrialized.
I'll be curious to find out if my predictions are close to the
real deal, and if so, which one is closer to the assumptions in the model.
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Fred McGalliard
Paul D. Farrar wrote:
> The problem is coal, and it's a big one. There's an awful lot of coal
I liked your point. While the rich may go nuclear, the poor buy coal,
and our scenario could be reduced CO2 emission by the rich, and rapidly
increasing production by the poor. And when dealing with the poor, there
are so many of them, it is easy to see a rapid increase in CO2
production as less efficient uses, such as production of fuel gas, and
oil, have to take the bulk of the demand.
> Are there any stabilization scenarios that do not require emissions,
> particularly in later years, to drop below current levels?
Much more frightening, actually, are the scenarios that make the natural
processes that are now holding CO2, H20, and Methane levels in check
unstable as the world gradually moves to a new stable state with just a
bit too much heat in the wrong places at the wrong times. In these
models, methane ice, permafrost soil components, cloud cover, ocean
currents, etc., flip into a different state, and the earth takes a step
change with on the order of a 20 year stabilization period, and much
more change than predicted by the small increase that crossed the
threshold.
bob
>
> "charliew" (char...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
> :
> : Don Libby wrote in message <3644A0...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> : >Jay Hanson wrote:
> : >>
> : >> Story from the London Daily Guardian on a new study by the Hadley Center
> : >> for Climate Change. It's a VERY strong story. In-depth information on
> : >> the study can be found on their web site at:
> : >>
> : >> <http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>.
> : >snip
> : >
> : >In the interest of keeping our facts straight, the information at this
> : >site is not "in-depth" it is cursory, and the study concerns the period
> : >from 2050 to 2100,
<snip>
The site mentioned above does have some interesting maps. In relation to
the query about input assumptions.
The authors state that they tested their
model against the last 150 years of actual temperatures. There global
graphs show that their model _didn't_ follow the actual data in the
1940's and 50's.
Whether their model is any more advanced than other models as
claimed - I'll leave to their peer reviewers to decide.
The interesting thing about their "runaway greenhouse" scenario post
2050 is that it runs into a discontinuity around 2050. Nearly all their
graphs show a discontiuity - i.e. a catastrophe in a complex system.
Given that the weather is a complex system, it seems blindingly obvious
that climate change is likely to occur as a series of catastrophes.
The graph that they publish that is the most catastrophic is the graph
of terrestrial biomass consumption/production of CO2. In their terms
this is the desertification of the Amazon and the Sahel and importantly
SE Asia.
I have some doubts about this particular model because I can't imagine a
a way for the ITCZ to cease in the particular areas. Though obviously
the existence of the forests provides some feedback to the weather.
I think that this outcome from a model has been perfectly predictable
for at least ten years. I think scientists have a lot to answer for by
not speaking out about the consequences and likelihood of the various
runaway greenhouse scenarios.
I doubt whether the particularities of this study are as accurate as
advertised but the occurence of the catastrophe is the important and
overlooked result.
--
Bob Howard
19 Carlisle St
Albany W.A. 6330
ph 61-08-98413805
rmho...@fullcomp.com.au
Don Libby
>
> James G. Acker wrote:
> >
> > "charliew" (char...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
> > :
> > : Don Libby wrote in message <3644A0...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> > : >Jay Hanson wrote:
> > : >>
> > : >> Story from the London Daily Guardian on a new study by the Hadley Center
> > : >> for Climate Change. It's a VERY strong story. In-depth information on
> > : >> the study can be found on their web site at:
> > : >>
> > : >> <http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html>.
> > : >snip
> > : >
> > : >In the interest of keeping our facts straight, the information at this
> > : >site is not "in-depth" it is cursory, and the study concerns the period
> > : >from 2050 to 2100,
>
> <snip>
>
> The site mentioned above does have some interesting maps. In relation to
> the query about input assumptions.
>
> I doubt whether the particularities of this study are as accurate as
> advertised but the occurence of the catastrophe is the important and
> overlooked result.
>
> --
> Bob Howard
The result of what? In other words, shouldn't we ask ourselves what
conditions drove the model into this catastrophic state - the output is
only as good as the input assumptions after all.
What is it that we should avoid if indeed this model has predictive
validity? I am willing to suspend judgement of the outcome at least
until I know how much and how quickly CO2 and other GHGs were assumed to
accumulate in the atmosphere.
It is insufficient to know that the input was assumed to be "business as
usual" because IPCC has identified at least six "business as usual"
(i.e. non-policy) scenarios, several of which succeed in stabilizing GHG
concentrations at or below twice pre-industrial levels, and some of
which assume a grotesque explosion in GHG emmissions.
It would be helpful to know which of these were cranked through the
model to arive at its catastrophic predictions.
-dl
I R A Aggie
+ The result of what? In other words, shouldn't we ask ourselves what
+ conditions drove the model into this catastrophic state - the output is
+ only as good as the input assumptions after all.
I wanted to look at this again...I know of too many people who this truth
seems lost.
James
Paul D. Farrar
wrote:
...
>The result of what? In other words, shouldn't we ask ourselves what
>conditions drove the model into this catastrophic state - the output is
>only as good as the input assumptions after all.
>
>What is it that we should avoid if indeed this model has predictive
>validity? I am willing to suspend judgement of the outcome at least
>until I know how much and how quickly CO2 and other GHGs were assumed to
>accumulate in the atmosphere.
>
>It is insufficient to know that the input was assumed to be "business as
>usual" because IPCC has identified at least six "business as usual"
>(i.e. non-policy) scenarios, several of which succeed in stabilizing GHG
>concentrations at or below twice pre-industrial levels, and some of
>which assume a grotesque explosion in GHG emmissions.
This makes it sound as if a "grotesque explosion" were necessary to
raise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels far above
today's. For CO2, at least, that is not true; today's emission levels
are quite sufficient. The stabilizing scenarios are largely academic
exercises of dubious plausibility: "What would it take to stabilize
CO2 at level X?" They allow emissions to rise somewhat in the next
century, but then require dramatic cutbacks. Stabilization at around 2
times preindustrial levels in the long term would probably require
large amount of recoverable fossil fuel to be left permanently in the
ground, which I, for one, find unlikely.
"Business as usual", to me, means a situation much like the present,
in which there is no regulatory limit on emissions (save as a
byproduct of Montreal) and energy prices are set by supply, demand,
and extraction cost, without regard to externalized costs. For a
situation like this, a transient of 4-6 times preindustrial, for
several centuries, is quite possible. Other people may have a
different idea of what "business as usual" means. Aggressive
limitation and sequestration, far beyond "Kyoto", may lower the peak
of the transient, but the long term level (500+ years) is determined
by geochemical constraints and the total fossil carbon burned. The
biosphere can actually have very little long-term effect, but can
affect the trajectory.
Of course we might have a technological energy revolution that will
allow us to avoid using much of the earth's fossil fuel reserves.
>
>It would be helpful to know which of these were cranked through the
>model to arive at its catastrophic predictions.
>
>-dl
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
Don Libby
The CO2 emissions paths of IS92c and IS92d scenarios map roughly onto
the 450 and 550 ppmv stabilization scenarios. These are plausible
scenarios in so far as they rely on substitution of nuclear, solar and
biomass for oil and gas, which are assumed to be in fairly limited
supply (so the price action necessary for substitution comes about
fairly quickly, without regulatory intervention). IS92e and IS92f
assume emmissions rates about 50% higher than 1990 rates, which causes
accumulation far higher than an extrapolation of 1990 rates. IS92a and
IS92b are roughly equivalent to 1990 steady-states, which would seem to
correspond to our preconceived notions about what is meant by "business
as usual". However, if by "business as ususal" is meant "no policy
intervention", then all of these scearios represent a plausible range of
emissions scenarios that could play out over the next 100 years in the
absence of political controls.
>
> "Business as usual", to me, means a situation much like the present,
> in which there is no regulatory limit on emissions (save as a
> byproduct of Montreal) and energy prices are set by supply, demand,
> and extraction cost, without regard to externalized costs. For a
> situation like this, a transient of 4-6 times preindustrial, for
> several centuries, is quite possible. Other people may have a
> different idea of what "business as usual" means. Aggressive
> limitation and sequestration, far beyond "Kyoto", may lower the peak
> of the transient, but the long term level (500+ years) is determined
> by geochemical constraints and the total fossil carbon burned. The
> biosphere can actually have very little long-term effect, but can
> affect the trajectory.
Yes, it is precisely because other people may have a different idea of
what is meant by "business as usual" that we need to know specifically
what the Hadley Centre modelers meant by it. When they derived alarming
output, did they assume emissions rates 50% above or 50% below 1990
levels? This is roughly the range of the IS92 non-policy scenarios that
IPCC WGIII reviewed in _Climate Change 1994_. When the Hadley Centre
modelers refer to "IPCC 'business as usual'", which of the six "buisness
as usual" scenarios are they referring to?
>
> Of course we might have a technological energy revolution that will
> allow us to avoid using much of the earth's fossil fuel reserves.
The means are already with us, no new breakthroughs in technology are
needed - just breakthroughs in social organization. When the power went
out in my office building yesterday on the first really cold day of our
harsh mid-western winter, it "concentrated the mind wonderfully".
>
> >
> >It would be helpful to know which of these were cranked through the
> >model to arive at its catastrophic predictions.
> >
> >-dl
>
> --
> Paul D. Farrar
> http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
I'm still waiting.
Paul D. Farrar
wrote:
>Paul D. Farrar wrote:
...
>> This makes it sound as if a "grotesque explosion" were necessary to
>> raise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels far above
>> today's. For CO2, at least, that is not true; today's emission levels
>> are quite sufficient. The stabilizing scenarios are largely academic
>> exercises of dubious plausibility: "What would it take to stabilize
>> CO2 at level X?" They allow emissions to rise somewhat in the next
>> century, but then require dramatic cutbacks. Stabilization at around 2
>> times preindustrial levels in the long term would probably require
>> large amount of recoverable fossil fuel to be left permanently in the
>> ground, which I, for one, find unlikely.
>
>The CO2 emissions paths of IS92c and IS92d scenarios map roughly onto
>the 450 and 550 ppmv stabilization scenarios. These are plausible
>scenarios in so far as they rely on substitution of nuclear, solar and
>biomass for oil and gas, which are assumed to be in fairly limited
>supply (so the price action necessary for substitution comes about
>fairly quickly, without regulatory intervention). IS92e and IS92f
The problem is coal, and it's a big one. There's an awful lot of coal,
it's cheap, and people know how to use it (and use a lot now), even in
low-tech economies. It will be much easier for the world to double its
CO2 output than to cut it even a little. China, India, the US, have a
lot of people, a lot of coal, little concern for international
opinion, and intend, for now at least, to burn away. 450ppmv
stabilization is a utopian vision; we are already about halfway there.
550 isn't much more likely.
>assume emmissions rates about 50% higher than 1990 rates, which causes
>accumulation far higher than an extrapolation of 1990 rates. IS92a and
>IS92b are roughly equivalent to 1990 steady-states, which would seem to
>correspond to our preconceived notions about what is meant by "business
>as usual". However, if by "business as ususal" is meant "no policy
>intervention", then all of these scearios represent a plausible range of
>emissions scenarios that could play out over the next 100 years in the
>absence of political controls.
Are there any stabilization scenarios that do not require emissions,
particularly in later years, to drop below current levels? 1990 is
below current levels. Even the S1000 from 1995 IPCC requires a
precipitous drop starting in the late 21st century to levels far below
current.
>
>>
>> "Business as usual", to me, means a situation much like the present,
>> in which there is no regulatory limit on emissions (save as a
>> byproduct of Montreal) and energy prices are set by supply, demand,
>> and extraction cost, without regard to externalized costs. For a
>> situation like this, a transient of 4-6 times preindustrial, for
>> several centuries, is quite possible. Other people may have a
>> different idea of what "business as usual" means. Aggressive
>> limitation and sequestration, far beyond "Kyoto", may lower the peak
>> of the transient, but the long term level (500+ years) is determined
>> by geochemical constraints and the total fossil carbon burned. The
>> biosphere can actually have very little long-term effect, but can
>> affect the trajectory.
>
>Yes, it is precisely because other people may have a different idea of
>what is meant by "business as usual" that we need to know specifically
>what the Hadley Centre modelers meant by it. When they derived alarming
>output, did they assume emissions rates 50% above or 50% below 1990
>levels? This is roughly the range of the IS92 non-policy scenarios that
>IPCC WGIII reviewed in _Climate Change 1994_. When the Hadley Centre
>modelers refer to "IPCC 'business as usual'", which of the six "buisness
>as usual" scenarios are they referring to?
I agree with you that it would be good to know what scenario they
used. They may have published it somewhere. This thread was started by
Jay's interpretation, of the Guardian's interpretation, of a PR
brochure (a pretty scientifically accurate one BTW).
>
>>
>> Of course we might have a technological energy revolution that will
>> allow us to avoid using much of the earth's fossil fuel reserves.
>
>The means are already with us, no new breakthroughs in technology are
>needed - just breakthroughs in social organization. When the power went
>out in my office building yesterday on the first really cold day of our
>harsh mid-western winter, it "concentrated the mind wonderfully".
Breakthroughs in social organization are pretty hard to do. I think
the motivation is not there now. (Look at the US response to the very
feeble Kyoto effort.) I don't think anything will get done unless
things get very bad first. Then it will be too late on CO2 (the other
gases decay comparatively rapidly), and we will have to wait centuries
for the oceans to lower the level. After oceanic steady state, in
about 500+ years, we will still be left with a permanent elevation of
perhaps 2 times preindustrial.
Don Libby
>
snip
Don Libby wrote:
> >
> >Yes, it is precisely because other people may have a different idea of
> >what is meant by "business as usual" that we need to know specifically
> >what the Hadley Centre modelers meant by it. When they derived alarming
> >output, did they assume emissions rates 50% above or 50% below 1990
> >levels? This is roughly the range of the IS92 non-policy scenarios that
> >IPCC WGIII reviewed in _Climate Change 1994_. When the Hadley Centre
> >modelers refer to "IPCC 'business as usual'", which of the six "buisness
> >as usual" scenarios are they referring to?
>
> I agree with you that it would be good to know what scenario they
> used. They may have published it somewhere. This thread was started by
> Jay's interpretation, of the Guardian's interpretation, of a PR
> brochure (a pretty scientifically accurate one BTW).
>
Scintific accuracy is not in question. The absence of references or
description of the input assumptions beyond the vague "'IPCC Business as
Usual'" is in question. The "References" section of the web-site
brochure was a pointer to the e-mail address of a Hadley Center official
to write for more information. I wrote for more information,
specifically a citation to document the input assumptions, which I have
not yet received. I am sending a follow-up request today. I will let
you know when (and if) I receive a reply, or the information requested.
Steven
Paul D. Farrar <far...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:364b658e...@news.datasync.com...
[snip]
>
>The problem is coal, and it's a big one. There's an awful lot of coal,
>it's cheap, and people know how to use it (and use a lot now), even in
>low-tech economies.
This assumes that clean coal technologies and centralized power distribution
and alternative home cooking and heating fuel sources are not promoted in
India and China. CDM at COP4 is gaining momentum and may bring China and
India on board to allow Senate approval by March of 1999 of the Kyoto
protocol.
It will be much easier for the world to double its
>CO2 output than to cut it even a little. China, India, the US, have a
>lot of people, a lot of coal, little concern for international
>opinion, and intend, for now at least, to burn away. 450ppmv
>stabilization is a utopian vision; we are already about halfway there.
>550 isn't much more likely.
[snip]
Paul Farrar
>description of the input assumptions beyond the vague "'IPCC Business as
>Usual'" is in question. The "References" section of the web-site
>brochure was a pointer to the e-mail address of a Hadley Center official
>to write for more information. I wrote for more information,
>specifically a citation to document the input assumptions, which I have
>not yet received. I am sending a follow-up request today. I will let
>you know when (and if) I receive a reply, or the information requested.
>
>-dl
Well don't expect an immediate answer, since he might be in Buenos Aires.
If he does reply, he should say 92a (or a slight variation from it).
----
Paul Farrar
Onar Aam
: The problem is coal, and it's a big one. There's an awful lot of coal,
: it's cheap, and people know how to use it (and use a lot now), even in
: low-tech economies. It will be much easier for the world to double its
: CO2 output than to cut it even a little. China, India, the US, have a
: lot of people, a lot of coal, little concern for international
: opinion, and intend, for now at least, to burn away. 450ppmv
: stabilization is a utopian vision; we are already about halfway there.
: 550 isn't much more likely.
If carbon emissions were to stabilize at 1990 levels then the CO2
concentration would stabilize around 420 ppm. In the next 20 years our
emissions will rise by approximately 30%, at which point they will
start diminishing, and by 2060 emissions should be below current
levels. This is not utopian, it's a realistic business-as-usual
scenario which takes into account technology improvements that
increases energy efficiency. Given this probable scenario it is likely
that we will never see CO2 levels above 500 ppm, probably not over
450 ppm either. The motivation for this technological improvement
is NOT fear of greenhouse death, but rather the urge for ever
cheaper energy. Despite your claim, coal is an expensive source of
energy. Electricity in most of Europe and USA is insanely
expensive. In Norway, where most of the electricity comes from
hydro-power, prices are very low in comparison. As the recent
economic boom has shown, low energy prices is a must for a healthy
economy. Therefore these new technologies will be fully
commercialized in less than 20 years.
Onar.
Paul D. Farrar
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>Hi Paul.
>Paul D. Farrar wrote:
>
>> The problem is coal, and it's a big one. There's an awful lot of coal
>
>I liked your point. While the rich may go nuclear, the poor buy coal,
>and our scenario could be reduced CO2 emission by the rich, and rapidly
>increasing production by the poor. And when dealing with the poor, there
>are so many of them, it is easy to see a rapid increase in CO2
>production as less efficient uses, such as production of fuel gas, and
>oil, have to take the bulk of the demand.
>
>> Are there any stabilization scenarios that do not require emissions,
>> particularly in later years, to drop below current levels?
>
>Much more frightening, actually, are the scenarios that make the natural
>processes that are now holding CO2, H20, and Methane levels in check
>unstable as the world gradually moves to a new stable state with just a
>bit too much heat in the wrong places at the wrong times. In these
>models, methane ice, permafrost soil components, cloud cover, ocean
>currents, etc., flip into a different state, and the earth takes a step
>change with on the order of a 20 year stabilization period, and much
>more change than predicted by the small increase that crossed the
>threshold.
Since I last posted on this, I went by the library and spotted a
recent issue of _Nature_ (29 Oct). This has an article by Hoffert that
pretty well covers what I've been trying to say; so, everyone, read
the article. I had not realized how optimistic IS92a (here dubbed the
"business-as-usual") was. It assumes modest population growth (good on
CO2), good per capita economic growth (bad on CO2), and very good
improvement (1%/yr) in energy efficiency (good on CO2). Even then, to
meet the 92a curve, the C output per unit energy has to fall below
that of natural gas by 2030. But the 92a curve if continued will not
even come close to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 for centuries (ie
when we run out of fossil fuels). One problem with the IPCC approach
is that it pretty much ignores everything beyond 2100, which is
actually fairly early in the greenhouse game. The long term pursuit of
a 92a-like path will likely lead to an extended peak of something like
5-6 times preindustrial level before a long slow decline to about 2
times, due to oceanic absorption. See, for example, Archer et al in
_Global Biogeochemical Cycles_ about one issue back. Limitation at
levels even as high as 750ppmv (3x) require falling emissions by
midcentury.
Don Libby
> : it's cheap, and people know how to use it (and use a lot now), even in
> : low-tech economies. It will be much easier for the world to double its
> : CO2 output than to cut it even a little. China, India, the US, have a
> : lot of people, a lot of coal, little concern for international
> : opinion, and intend, for now at least, to burn away. 450ppmv
> : stabilization is a utopian vision; we are already about halfway there.
> : 550 isn't much more likely.
>
> concentration would stabilize around 420 ppm. In the next 20 years our
> emissions will rise by approximately 30%, at which point they will
> start diminishing, and by 2060 emissions should be below current
> levels. This is not utopian, it's a realistic business-as-usual
> scenario which takes into account technology improvements that
> increases energy efficiency. Given this probable scenario it is likely
> that we will never see CO2 levels above 500 ppm, probably not over
> 450 ppm either. The motivation for this technological improvement
> is NOT fear of greenhouse death, but rather the urge for ever
> cheaper energy. Despite your claim, coal is an expensive source of
> energy. Electricity in most of Europe and USA is insanely
> expensive. In Norway, where most of the electricity comes from
> hydro-power, prices are very low in comparison. As the recent
> economic boom has shown, low energy prices is a must for a healthy
> economy. Therefore these new technologies will be fully
> commercialized in less than 20 years.
>
> Onar.
> For someone who believes that climate science is at a very early level requiring
> decades more research, you're putting a very high level of confidence on current
> carbon cycle models. You *are* basing your statement on current C models, aren't you?
>
> -W.
>
> ---
> William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
> Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
>
Also, in "BAU=IS92a" in sci.environment WM Connolley
>
> The current stuff from the Hadley Centre (the '98 brochure produced for BA) uses
> a "business as usual scenario" which, in fact (pers. comm.), is is92a.
>
> Interestingly, the various greenhouse gases are put in individually rather than
> as CO2 equivalent, as they used to be.
>
> -W.
>
> ---
> William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Indeed it is. Here as promised is the reply from Hadley Centre's Dr.
Jenkins:
> Return-Path: gjje...@meto.gov.uk
> From: <gjje...@meto.gov.uk>
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:07 +0000 (GMT)
> Subject: RE:
> To: dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
>
> Yes, it is indeed the IPCC IS92a emissions scenario. We do no work here on
> emissions scenarios, so simply take what we need from IPCC. Please use this
> short response as you wish.
>
> Geoff Jenkins
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu
> Sent: 07 November 1998 18:18
> To: gjjenkins
> Subject:
>
> Letter to Dr Geoff Jenkins, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
> Research, The Met. Office:
> gjje...@meto.gov.uk
>
> Dear Dr. Jenkins,
>
> I read with interest the summary of Hadley Center GCM impact projections
> posted at http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/Brochure98/index.html
>
> I was dismayed to find so little documentation of the input assumptions,
> however. In particular, would you please provide a reference for what you
> call the "IPCC 'business as usual'" scenario.
[snipped for brevity]
> Return-Path: gjje...@meto.gov.uk
> From: <gjje...@meto.gov.uk>
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:59 +0000 (GMT)
> Subject: RE: Citation, please (second request)
> To: dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
>
> see reply to previous email - I was in Buenos Aires last week
>
> geoff jenkins
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu
> Sent: 13 November 1998 00:49
> To: gjjenkins
> Subject: Citation, please (second request)
And furthermore... (Reply to Dr. Jenkins)
Thank you kindly, and I am (A)relieved that your reply is as I expected,
and (B) deeply concerned that the model may have predicitive validity
for this rather modest GHG emissions scenario, leading me the more to
believe that we must see to it that something approaching IS92c (or
stabilization in the 450ppmv to 550ppmv CO2 by 2100 range) is in fact
realized, should the Hadley Centre's cumulative GHG impact projections
prove valid.
My next question, then, is whether Hadley Centre will consider future
plans to run alternate input scenarios, such as IS92c, or whatever
emerges from the new WGIII Special Report on Emissions Scenarios? This
would seem to me to be a useful exercise in deciding whether there are
*any* feasible emissions trajectories that *do not* result in
catastrophic atmospheric disruptions within the next century?
In my field (medical demography), long-range forecasting is even more
uncertain than is the case in meteorology and climate modeling. We
recognize this and resolve potential controversey surrounding these
limitations by stating explicitly that there are no long-range
*forecasting* tools for the social sciences, but that the tools of
long-range *projection* can be didactically useful for comparing
differences between alternate projections: more can be learned from how
the model responds to changes in input assumptions than can be learned
from otherwise futile attempts to predict the future on the basis of a
single projection.
Best regards,
-dl
PS, both of your replies and the text above were posted to
sci.econ,sci.energy,sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Paul Farrar
>Paul D. Farrar (far...@datasync.com) wrote:
>
>: it's cheap, and people know how to use it (and use a lot now), even in
>: low-tech economies. It will be much easier for the world to double its
>: CO2 output than to cut it even a little. China, India, the US, have a
>: lot of people, a lot of coal, little concern for international
>: opinion, and intend, for now at least, to burn away. 450ppmv
>: stabilization is a utopian vision; we are already about halfway there.
>: 550 isn't much more likely.
>
>concentration would stabilize around 420 ppm. In the next 20 years our
>emissions will rise by approximately 30%, at which point they will
>start diminishing, and by 2060 emissions should be below current
>levels. This is not utopian, it's a realistic business-as-usual
>scenario which takes into account technology improvements that
>increases energy efficiency. Given this probable scenario it is likely
>that we will never see CO2 levels above 500 ppm, probably not over
>450 ppm either. The motivation for this technological improvement
420 ppmv is a very precise sounding number. It doesn't quite agree
with what oceanographers and atmospheric scientists think, based on
the observed ocean and atmosphere of the Earth and laboratory
measurements. Did you get this argument from something like the
silly papers Daly collects for us, like Siegelstadt, or whatever.
The one by Dietze (I think) is really hilarious. You would think
someone would read a book on the carbon cycle before publishing an
article, even if only on the Internet,...but you would be wrong in
this case. A more reliable source would be the papers in journals
such as _Nature_, _Geophysical Res. Lett._, _Global Biogeochemical
Cycles_, _Tellus_, etc. See for example, in this case, Hoffert et
al., 29 Oct. _Nature_; Wigley et al., _Nature 379_, p240; Archer et
al., _GBC 12_, #2; and the frequently invoked, but often unread,
IPCC WG1, Ch.2.
The IPCC IS92c and d scenarios closely bracket the 1990 emission
rate, but neither one stabilizes atmospheric CO2 by 2100 at all,
much less doing so at about 420. Both are still going up at 2100.
This brings up an unrealistic assumption that your source makes. The
maximum level and the stabilization level depend, not just on the
emission rate, but on the total emissions. Your source assumes that
the ocean has an infinite capacity, which it does not.
>is NOT fear of greenhouse death, but rather the urge for ever
>cheaper energy. Despite your claim, coal is an expensive source of
>energy. Electricity in most of Europe and USA is insanely
>expensive. In Norway, where most of the electricity comes from
>hydro-power, prices are very low in comparison. As the recent
>economic boom has shown, low energy prices is a must for a healthy
>economy. Therefore these new technologies will be fully
>commercialized in less than 20 years.
Most of the world isn't like Norway. I live in a US state with half
the population, and almost no hydropower at all. It's sort of flat.
(And poorer.)
A fairly efficient distribution system, combined with a bit of free
market, like that of US-Canada should largely erase Norway's energy
cost advantage.
>
>
>Onar.
Paul Farrar
Paul D. Farrar
...
>measurements. Did you get this argument from something like the
>silly papers Daly collects for us, like Siegelstadt, or whatever.
...
Now that I think about it, the guy's name was Ahlbeck. Segalstad is
into something or another else.
Onar Ĺm
> >concentration would stabilize around 420 ppm. In the next 20 years our
> >emissions will rise by approximately 30%, at which point they will
> >start diminishing, and by 2060 emissions should be below current
> >levels. This is not utopian, it's a realistic business-as-usual
> >scenario which takes into account technology improvements that
> >increases energy efficiency. Given this probable scenario it is likely
> >that we will never see CO2 levels above 500 ppm, probably not over
> >450 ppm either. The motivation for this technological improvement
>
> 420 ppmv is a very precise sounding number. It doesn't quite agree
> with what oceanographers and atmospheric scientists think, based on
> the observed ocean and atmosphere of the Earth and laboratory
> silly papers Daly collects for us, like Siegelstadt, or whatever.
> someone would read a book on the carbon cycle before publishing an
> article, even if only on the Internet,...but you would be wrong in
> this case. A more reliable source would be the papers in journals
> such as _Nature_, _Geophysical Res. Lett._, _Global Biogeochemical
> Cycles_, _Tellus_, etc. See for example, in this case, Hoffert et
> al., 29 Oct. _Nature_; Wigley et al., _Nature 379_, p240; Archer et
> al., _GBC 12_, #2; and the frequently invoked, but often unread,
> IPCC WG1, Ch.2.
Tom Segalstad's model is obviously wrong. Dietze's model definitely
has its weaknesses, but it also has the nice advantage of fitting the
observed data, unlike the models used in the IPCC reports. As a
scientist I am deeply comitted to empirical observations, and I am
therefore forced to consider Dietze's model with seriousness since it
actually has predictive value. Dietze's model has been able to predict
the trend in observed CO2 concentrations, IPCC's models haven't even
been close.
> The IPCC IS92c and d scenarios closely bracket the 1990 emission
> rate, but neither one stabilizes atmospheric CO2 by 2100 at all,
> much less doing so at about 420.
Because they assume a CO2 lifetime of several centuries rather than
several decades.
> Both are still going up at 2100.
And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater than
the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4 ppm
per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
> This brings up an unrealistic assumption that your source makes.
"unrealistic" as in not observed in reality or "unrealistic" as not in
compliance with IPCC models?
> The
> maximum level and the stabilization level depend, not just on the
> emission rate, but on the total emissions. Your source assumes that
> the ocean has an infinite capacity, which it does not.
The ocean's capacity is 50 times greater than the atmosphere content.
We will run out of fossil fuels long before the oceans are saturated.
> >is NOT fear of greenhouse death, but rather the urge for ever
> >cheaper energy. Despite your claim, coal is an expensive source of
> >energy. Electricity in most of Europe and USA is insanely
> >expensive. In Norway, where most of the electricity comes from
> >hydro-power, prices are very low in comparison. As the recent
> >economic boom has shown, low energy prices is a must for a healthy
> >economy. Therefore these new technologies will be fully
> >commercialized in less than 20 years.
>
> Most of the world isn't like Norway. I live in a US state with half
> the population, and almost no hydropower at all. It's sort of flat.
> (And poorer.
Yes, and one of the reasons that people are poorer is precisely
because el-prices are higher. Since the US doesn't have the same
hydro potentials, the only realistic way to reduce the high el-prices
is to improve energy efficiency of fossil fuels. A side effect of this
is that CO2 emissions drop.
> A fairly efficient distribution system, combined with a bit of free
> market, like that of US-Canada should largely erase Norway's energy
> cost advantage.
The Nordic countries (Norway,Sweden, Finland and Denmark) has had a free
market for 4 years now. The result has been that prices have dropped about
10-20% in some areas. Don't expect any significantly greater changes in
the now open market in US-Canada. The experience from Norway is that
vague alliances were formed to sabotage the opening of the market,
securing virtual monopolies 20 years into the future in some areas. The
same pattern can now be observed in the US.
Onar.
Harold Lindaberry
Onar Åm wrote:
I expect that both largely ignore the fact that the CO2 life is measured in
minutes or even seconds when chlorophyll and sun light is present.
>
>
> > Both are still going up at 2100.
>
> And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater than
> the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4 ppm
> per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
>
> > This brings up an unrealistic assumption that your source makes.
>
> "unrealistic" as in not observed in reality or "unrealistic" as not in
> compliance with IPCC models?
>
> > The
> > maximum level and the stabilization level depend, not just on the
> > emission rate, but on the total emissions. Your source assumes that
> > the ocean has an infinite capacity, which it does not.
>
> The ocean's capacity is 50 times greater than the atmosphere content.
> We will run out of fossil fuels long before the oceans are saturated.
One must not forget most of the suns energy hits water and most of the
biological conversion probably takes place there - as everything has a life
span much of it probably eventually winds up on the bottom in - a largely
anaerobic situation and is likely converted to CH4 ( methane ice ) if it is
more than 30 meters deep - otherwise up it goes unless the temperature is low
enough
> r
> > >cheaper energy. Despite your claim, coal is an expensive source of
> > >energy.
I expect at some point in the future they will be glad that it is there.
Electricity has it's limitations in transportation where much of the energy
goes
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
> .
>
> Onar.
Don Libby
>
> In article <72g58a$hau$1...@marton.hsr.no>, on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) wrote:
> >Paul D. Farrar (far...@datasync.com) wrote:
> >
> >: opinion, and intend, for now at least, to burn away. 450ppmv
> >: stabilization is a utopian vision; we are already about halfway there.
> >: 550 isn't much more likely.
> >
> >concentration would stabilize around 420 ppm. In the next 20 years our
> >emissions will rise by approximately 30%, at which point they will
> >start diminishing, and by 2060 emissions should be below current
>
> 420 ppmv is a very precise sounding number. It doesn't quite agree
> with what oceanographers and atmospheric scientists think, based on
> the observed ocean and atmosphere of the Earth and laboratory
> measurements.
>
> The IPCC IS92c and d scenarios closely bracket the 1990 emission
> rate, but neither one stabilizes atmospheric CO2 by 2100 at all,
Wait, that doesn't quite square with what I have in mind (I could be
wrong, or maybe you could be) so let me check it in IPCC 1995 _Climate
Change 1994: An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Scenarios_ Table 6.5 p271
shows world annual growth rate in carbon *emissions* to 2020 as 1.68
percent per year for IS92a (biz az uz), .56%/yr for IS92c (substitute
non-carbon energy), 1.0%/yr for IS92d (same as c except with faster
economic growth), and the highest IS92e at 2.9%/yr (the "grotesque
explosion"). So, by 2020, both c and d have lower growth rates in
emmissions than does a (ie they do not "bracket" a), but you're right
that they are still going up, not declining over this period.
Now, for the year 2100 emissions, concentration, and stabilization bit,
see fig. 5, p. 22: annual emissions rates for c and d start dropping
after 2020 and are below 1990 levels by 2100. The rate of emissions in
d is half that of a and c is one fourth that of a in 2100.
Cumulative CO2 concentrations for d look pretty linear to 2100, c is
concave, a, b, e, and f are all convex. This means that c is the only
one that tends toward stabilization by 2100. For scale, they project
the cumulative concentration trajectory for "constant projected year
2000 emissions", which starts out at around 375 ppmv in 2000 and climbs
to 550ppmv by 2100 (without much of a slowdown, so this doesn't look
like stabilization to me).
Now, the really interesting chart is Figure 7 on p 23, which overlays
the IS92 scenarios on top of the long-run stabilization scenarios, which
stabilize in 2100, with 550ppmv being roughly "twice pre-industrial
levels". The IS92c scenario emissions trajectory tracks along between
the s450 and s550 scenarios, while IS92a and IS92e just go shooting off
out into interstellar space. So IS92c, of the six "non-policy"
scenarios, is the one most likely to succeed at "stabilization at or
below twice pre-industrial levels by the year 2100".
I think Onars point is that IS92c is a "non-policy" scenario, which is
certainly true. However, I beg to differ with the opinion expressed by
no one in particular that this will just happen automatically without
concern for regulating the carbon intensity of the energy supply. In
order for the market to make the non-carbon fuel substitution without
regulatory intervention, IS92c assumes that we have a shortage of oil
and gas by 2020, which makes nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass more
economically competitive.
What Farrar's point is, and a good one, is that it all comes down to
(with appologies to Jeavons) "the coal question".
> >
> >Onar.
>
> Paul Farrar
-dl
Steinn Sigurdsson
accumulation far higher than an extrapolation of 1990 rates. IS92a and
IS92b are roughly equivalent to 1990 steady-states, which would seem to
correspond to our preconceived notions about what is meant by "business
as usual". However, if by "business as ususal" is meant "no policy
intervention", then all of these scearios represent a plausible range of
emissions scenarios that could play out over the next 100 years in the
absence of political controls.
...
Yes, it is precisely because other people may have a different idea of
what is meant by "business as usual" that we need to know specifically
what the Hadley Centre modelers meant by it. When they derived alarming
I gather Hadley meant IS92a - which I understand to be
a 0.5% growth in emissions per year (followed by levelling
off in 2050?). However, the terminology in the field
is not consistent, I just read a CSIRO report where
a "business-as-usual" scenarion of 1% growth in emissions
per year was contrasted with IS92a - those are rather rapdily
diverging scenarios...
(IS92a assumes population doubling and high economic
growth - anyone know of a handy on-line source
which takes the IS92x scenarios and shows the
CO2 p.a. emission curves inferred? Or remember
the relevant Nature reference...?)
Paul D. Farrar
The ">>" is by me. The ">> >" is by Onar.
>> >If carbon emissions were to stabilize at 1990 levels then the CO2
>> >concentration would stabilize around 420 ppm. In the next 20 years our
>> >emissions will rise by approximately 30%, at which point they will
>> >start diminishing, and by 2060 emissions should be below current
>> >levels. This is not utopian, it's a realistic business-as-usual
>> >scenario which takes into account technology improvements that
>> >increases energy efficiency. Given this probable scenario it is likely
>> >that we will never see CO2 levels above 500 ppm, probably not over
>> >450 ppm either. The motivation for this technological improvement
>>
>> 420 ppmv is a very precise sounding number. It doesn't quite agree
>> with what oceanographers and atmospheric scientists think, based on
>> the observed ocean and atmosphere of the Earth and laboratory
>> measurements. Did you get this argument from something like the
>> silly papers Daly collects for us, like Siegelstadt, or whatever.
>> The one by Dietze (I think) is really hilarious. You would think
>> someone would read a book on the carbon cycle before publishing an
>> article, even if only on the Internet,...but you would be wrong in
>> this case. A more reliable source would be the papers in journals
>> such as _Nature_, _Geophysical Res. Lett._, _Global Biogeochemical
>> Cycles_, _Tellus_, etc. See for example, in this case, Hoffert et
>> al., 29 Oct. _Nature_; Wigley et al., _Nature 379_, p240; Archer et
>> al., _GBC 12_, #2; and the frequently invoked, but often unread,
>> IPCC WG1, Ch.2.
>
>Tom Segalstad's model is obviously wrong. Dietze's model definitely
>has its weaknesses, but it also has the nice advantage of fitting the
Dietze's model is completely wrong because it represents the
(laboratory measured) dissolution reactions between seawater and
gaseous CO2 by a factor of about 10.
>observed data, unlike the models used in the IPCC reports. As a
>scientist I am deeply comitted to empirical observations, and I am
Just out of curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? The last I
heard, you were a musician and some kind of computer programmer.
>therefore forced to consider Dietze's model with seriousness since it
>actually has predictive value. Dietze's model has been able to predict
>the trend in observed CO2 concentrations, IPCC's models haven't even
>been close.
Dietze's model has been curve fitted to a short interval. All sorts of
physically unrealistic models can do well under such circumstances.
His long term predictions haven't had time to be tested against the
world.
>
>> The IPCC IS92c and d scenarios closely bracket the 1990 emission
>> rate, but neither one stabilizes atmospheric CO2 by 2100 at all,
>> much less doing so at about 420.
>
>Because they assume a CO2 lifetime of several centuries rather than
>several decades.
That's because all indications are that that will be the lifetime. Why
do you think it's shorter? Why do experts think it's centuries?
Archer, Khesghi, and Maier-Reimer go for 200-450 years, depending on
rate of emission. You should read that paper, although you will have
to learn carbonate chemistry to understand most of it. Do you realize
that Starr's (an electrical engineer) claimed short lifetime, which
Dietze cites as support, was due to his making an amateurish mistake
which any oceanographer would immediately spot. This has been pointed
out in both the 1995 IPCC report and _Tellus_, but people like Dietze
just keep repeating it.
>
>> Both are still going up at 2100.
>
>And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater than
>the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4 ppm
>per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
There was a drop during the early 90s due to Pinatubo. The year to
year values are quite variable, but on average about half of human
emissions stay in the atmosphere. The IPCC numbers I've seen keep
fairly close to that value for the next few decades anyway. That is
about 1.4/yr for current levels. What reference predicts a rise of
2.5/yr for the present.
>
>> This brings up an unrealistic assumption that your source makes.
>
>"unrealistic" as in not observed in reality or "unrealistic" as not in
>compliance with IPCC models?
Unrealistic in the sense of the ocean not having infinite capacity.
>
>> The
>> maximum level and the stabilization level depend, not just on the
>> emission rate, but on the total emissions. Your source assumes that
>> the ocean has an infinite capacity, which it does not.
>
>The ocean's capacity is 50 times greater than the atmosphere content.
>We will run out of fossil fuels long before the oceans are saturated.
The ocean CONTAINS about 50 times the CO2 equivalent of the
atmosphere. It does not have 50 times the CAPACITY of the atmosphere
for additional CO2. There is a difference. This was one of the big
mistakes Dietze made in his "new carbon cycle model", but it's an easy
mistake for him to make, if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Do you wonder why you have to find his paper on crank web sites,
instead of in a research journal? Do you understand why, if one adds
about 6 times preindustrial CO2 to the atmosphere, about 5 parts will
go into the oceans and about 1 will stay in the atmosphere, doubling
its level? This is not from some "IPCC model", this is from laboratory
measurements and chemical kinetics, and the significance for the
atmospheric situation was noted by the 1950s, at least. There is at
least 6 times in recoverable fossil fuel, maybe as much as 10. That's
another thing, Ahlbeck and Dietze assume absurdly low values, at least
according to geologists. Let's see, ... underestimate fossil fuel C by
a factor of 5 ... overestimate oceanic absorption by a factor of 10
... no problem!
It truly baffles me how people like Dietze, Ahlbeck, Starr, etc. think
they can just wing it, and fake their way past people who actually
know the subject. Of course, they don't think they are faking it: they
think they are coming up with "new paradigms" and brilliant insights,
and nobody else really knows much, anyway. If you have ever been good
at any subject in your life, you will know how hard it would be for a
complete novice to pass for a great expert, and how easy it would be
for you to spot him as a poseur. It's no different for oceanographers
and meteorologists. I am continually amazed by the global warming
"skeptics" (with a very few exceptions, most of whom you have probably
never heard of).
...
Bunch of stuff on electric rates cut out.
>
>Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> heard, you were a musician and some kind of computer programmer.
I'm a systems engineer and work at Intelligenesis Corp. as director
of natural language engineering. I've also for years been working with
biomass and municipal solid waste gasification in Lappgas Inc.
> That's because all indications are that that will be the lifetime. Why
> do you think it's shorter? Why do experts think it's centuries?
> Archer, Khesghi, and Maier-Reimer go for 200-450 years, depending on
> rate of emission. You should read that paper, although you will have
> to learn carbonate chemistry to understand most of it. Do you realize
> that Starr's (an electrical engineer) claimed short lifetime, which
> Dietze cites as support, was due to his making an amateurish mistake
> which any oceanographer would immediately spot. This has been pointed
> out in both the 1995 IPCC report and _Tellus_, but people like Dietze
> just keep repeating it.
I have no problems seeing this. Nevertheless I've lived long enough to
know that even the best models may fall. Not many years ago all the
experts were certain that methane would approximately double in the
next century. Now it seems that growth has almost completely stopped.
> >And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater
than
> >the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4
ppm
> >per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
>
> There was a drop during the early 90s due to Pinatubo.
Well, we're in the late 90s now and the increases are still low, despite
the fact that global temperatures recovered years ago. (last year the
increase was about 1 ppm) And perhaps more importantly, there is a
significant
downward trend in the airborne fraction over the last 30 years.
> The year to
> year values are quite variable,
In large due to ENSOs and volcanos. These can be filtered out of the data
and
this still shows a downward trend.
> but on average about half of human
> emissions stay in the atmosphere. The IPCC numbers I've seen keep
> fairly close to that value for the next few decades anyway. That is
> about 1.4/yr for current levels. What reference predicts a rise of
> 2.5/yr for the present.
I'm only basing that on memory. It was from one of the IPCC reports.
> >The ocean's capacity is 50 times greater than the atmosphere content.
> >We will run out of fossil fuels long before the oceans are saturated.
>
> The ocean CONTAINS about 50 times the CO2 equivalent of the
> atmosphere. It does not have 50 times the CAPACITY of the atmosphere
> for additional CO2. There is a difference. This was one of the big
> mistakes Dietze made in his "new carbon cycle model", but it's an easy
> mistake for him to make, if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> Do you wonder why you have to find his paper on crank web sites,
> instead of in a research journal? Do you understand why, if one adds
> about 6 times preindustrial CO2 to the atmosphere, about 5 parts will
> go into the oceans and about 1 will stay in the atmosphere, doubling
> its level?
Looks to me like equilibrial chemistry. But this ignores the role of
biology. When you add in the effect of CO2 fertilization you most
likely get significantly less than a doubling. How much less? That
depends on the biota uptake. One thing is sure though: CO2 increase
is slowed significantly by enhanced plant growth.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> certainly true. However, I beg to differ with the opinion expressed by
> no one in particular that this will just happen automatically without
> concern for regulating the carbon intensity of the energy supply.
I think it will, and the overarching reason is PRICE. Everyone keeps
talking about how cheap coal is at the moment, but it's just not true.
In the West fossil fuels makes up 20 to 40% of the expenses in a
society. The low oil prices in the 90s have shown how important low
energy prices is for a prospering economy. Now, looking 50 years into the
future it is unlikely that the cost of an oil barrel equivalent will be
significantly lower than today. In fact, the most realistic projections
show
that the prices of fossil fuels are likely to rise a bit. Therefore, there
are only three realistic ways to reduce the costs of energy: technology,
technology and technology. Now of course the immanent threat of
environmentalist lunacy is an additional motivation for the industries,
which may speed up the process by a few years, but overall very little
political motivation is needed.
> In
> order for the market to make the non-carbon fuel substitution without
> regulatory intervention, IS92c assumes that we have a shortage of oil
> and gas by 2020, which makes nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass more
> economically competitive.
Ah, here's where IS92c is wrong. We're not going to see a significant
substitution of oil, gas and coal. Even though the world oil production
is scheduled to peak around 2020 there will not be a shortage. By then
it is very likely that flywheel based EVs will have conquered the
roads, which means that the demand for oil will have gone down
significantly.
> What Farrar's point is, and a good one, is that it all comes down to
> (with appologies to Jeavons) "the coal question".
Coal is in for a ride! As I said in another post, a 400 MW coal plant will
be built
every single week for the next 20 years. This will increase coal
consumption in this
period, but by 2070 all coal plants based on Carnot cycle technology will
be gone,
and plant efficiency will on average be almost 2.5 times greater than
today. Because
of this, coal demand will be lower by 2070 than today.
Onar.
Harold Lindaberry
Onar Åm wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? The last I
> > heard, you were a musician and some kind of computer programmer.
>
> I'm a systems engineer and work at Intelligenesis Corp. as director
> of natural language engineering. I've also for years been working with
> biomass and municipal solid waste gasification in Lappgas Inc.
>
> > That's because all indications are that that will be the lifetime. Why
> > do you think it's shorter? Why do experts think it's centuries?
> > Archer, Khesghi, and Maier-Reimer go for 200-450 years, depending on
> > rate of emission. You should read that paper, although you will have
> > to learn carbonate chemistry to understand most of it.
It might be nice to throw in a little biology as that is where the action
is .
> Do you realize
> > that Starr's (an electrical engineer) claimed short lifetime, which
> > Dietze cites as support, was due to his making an amateurish mistake
> > which any oceanographer would immediately spot. This has been pointed
> > out in both the 1995 IPCC report and _Tellus_, but people like Dietze
> > just keep repeating it.
>
> I have no problems seeing this. Nevertheless I've lived long enough to
> know that even the best models may fall.
Probably will _ unless all data is included GIGO.
> Not many years ago all the
> experts were certain that methane would approximately double in the
> next century. Now it seems that growth has almost completely stopped.
>
> > >And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater
> than
> > >the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4
> ppm
> > >per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
> >
> > There was a drop during the early 90s due to Pinatubo.
Or some other unknown factor - but it always is nice to have something to
blame when predictions don't turn out ;-))))
>
>
> Well, we're in the late 90s now and the increases are still low, despite
> the fact that global temperatures recovered years ago. (last year the
> increase was about 1 ppm) And perhaps more importantly, there is a
> significant
> downward trend in the airborne fraction over the last 30 years.
>
> > The year to
> > year values are quite variable,
>
> In large due to ENSOs and volcanos. These can be filtered out of the data
> and
> this still shows a downward trend.
>
> > but on average about half of human
> > emissions stay in the atmosphere. The IPCC numbers I've seen keep
> > fairly close to that value for the next few decades anyway. That is
> > about 1.4/yr for current levels. What reference predicts a rise of
> > 2.5/yr for the present.
>
> I'm only basing that on memory. It was from one of the IPCC reports.
>
> > >The ocean's capacity is 50 times greater than the atmosphere content.
> > >We will run out of fossil fuels long before the oceans are saturated.
> >
> > The ocean CONTAINS about 50 times the CO2 equivalent of the
> > atmosphere. It does not have 50 times the CAPACITY of the atmosphere
> > for additional CO2. There is a difference. This was one of the big
> > mistakes Dietze made in his "new carbon cycle model", but it's an easy
> > mistake for him to make, if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> > Do you wonder why you have to find his paper on crank web sites,
> > instead of in a research journal? Do you understand why, if one adds
> > about 6 times preindustrial CO2 to the atmosphere, about 5 parts will
> > go into the oceans and about 1 will stay in the atmosphere, doubling
> > its level?
>
> Looks to me like equilibrial chemistry. But this ignores the role of
> biology. When you add in the effect of CO2 fertilization you most
> likely get significantly less than a doubling. How much less? That
> depends on the biota uptake. One thing is sure though: CO2 increase
> is slowed significantly by enhanced plant growth.
Since mans burning of C only represents < 0.1 % of the C there may be a
tendency of having the tail wag the dog ;-)
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> Onar.
Will
>
> > Just out of curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? The last I
> > heard, you were a musician and some kind of computer programmer.
>
> of natural language engineering. I've also for years been working with
> biomass and municipal solid waste gasification in Lappgas Inc.
Yet you claimed to be a scientist, and have led us to believe that your
scientific background was in atmospheric sciences.
You then toss around phrases like;
"Looks to me like equilibrial chemistry."
"IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year."
"But this ignores the role of biology."
"Nevertheless I've lived long enough to know that even the best models
may fall"
(Which to me suggests that you are saying that if the models DO match
the data and predict detrimental climate change, then they might be
wrong anyway, so ignore them)
You also seem to compare IPCC's models from the 1992 timeframe with
opponent's current models. It would behoove you to compare apples with
apples.
You also threw out a number you claimed was from the IPCC, then
attacked, but later claimed it was from memory and you're not sure where
it came from.
you wrote;
> And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater
> than the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4
> ppm per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
and then later;
> I'm only basing that on memory. It was from one of the IPCC reports.
Try to keep the facts straight.
Cheers,
Will
Harold Lindaberry
Will wrote:
> Onar Åm wrote:
> >
> > > Just out of curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? The last I
> > > heard, you were a musician and some kind of computer programmer.
> >
> > I'm a systems engineer and work at Intelligenesis Corp. as director
> > of natural language engineering. I've also for years been working with
> > biomass and municipal solid waste gasification in Lappgas Inc.
>
> Yet you claimed to be a scientist, and have led us to believe that your
> scientific background was in atmospheric sciences.
>
> You then toss around phrases like;
>
> "Looks to me like equilibrial chemistry."
>
> "IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year."
>
> "But this ignores the role of biology."
>
> "Nevertheless I've lived long enough to know that even the best models
> may fall"
> (Which to me suggests that you are saying that if the models DO match
> the data and predict detrimental climate change, then they might be
> wrong anyway, so ignore them)
IMO anytime one predicts beyond the scope of ones data one might be wrong and
even then sometimes " flies in the ointment pop up " - the further ahead one
predicts the more likely this is to be the case - this specially true when some
of the factors are not fully understood and included in the system of
calculations. Even then projections are " iffy " at best. I think there is a
tendency to think computers have brains and come up with the right answers
certainly they can make rapid calculations with great speed and are equally
capable of producing either correct answers or errors with equal rapidity.
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> You also seem to compare IPCC's models from the 1992 timeframe with
> opponent's current models. It would behoove you to compare apples with
> apples.
>
> You also threw out a number you claimed was from the IPCC, then
> attacked, but later claimed it was from memory and you're not sure where
> it came from.
>
> you wrote;
>
> > And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater
> > than the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4
> > ppm per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
>
Onar Ĺm
> > of natural language engineering. I've also for years been working with
> > biomass and municipal solid waste gasification in Lappgas Inc.
>
> Yet you claimed to be a scientist, and have led us to believe that your
> scientific background was in atmospheric sciences.
I have NEVER claimed to be an atmospheric scientist. This does not mean
that I am not allowed to evaluate models, especially computer models.
I have done a lot of computer modelling in my life and I therefore know
that the distance between computational success and completely and abysmal
failure can be very short. A single little factor left out or exaggerated
can dramatically change the model predictions. One example of this is the
cloud issue. A few years ago when ice clouds were added to models,
predicted
warming halved. To use the words of William Connolley: if the predictions
can change that dramatically and that fast, isn't it obvious that little
confidence should be placed in them? (he originally stated this with
respect
to the 20 year old MSU data in face of the recent El Nino "blip", but the
argument applies equally well to models)
> You then toss around phrases like;
>
> "Looks to me like equilibrial chemistry."
Are you saying that this is an inaccurate statement.
> "Nevertheless I've lived long enough to know that even the best models
> may fall"
> (Which to me suggests that you are saying that if the models DO match
> the data and predict detrimental climate change, then they might be
> wrong anyway, so ignore them)
Nooo. That's not what I'm saying. If the models DO match the data then
that is great! Unfortunately they don't. That's my point. If a model
doesn't
fit reality then there is something *wrong* with it, even if it is made by
experts.
> You also threw out a number you claimed was from the IPCC, then
> attacked, but later claimed it was from memory and you're not sure where
> it came from.
I know I read it in one of the IPCC reports. Are you saying that using
memory is an unforgivable crime?
Onar.
Franz Gerl
: > There was a drop during the early 90s due to Pinatubo.
:
: Well, we're in the late 90s now and the increases are still low, despite
: the fact that global temperatures recovered years ago. (last year the
: increase was about 1 ppm) And perhaps more importantly, there is a
: significant
: downward trend in the airborne fraction over the last 30 years.
:
According to the New Scientist the increase quoting David
Kneeling of Scripps during the last 12 months was 3.5 ppm,
the largest increase ever measured.
: > The year to
: > year values are quite variable,
:
: In large due to ENSOs and volcanos. These can be filtered out of the data
: and
: this still shows a downward trend.
:
Of course you are quoting this again from memory and cannot
provide a source for this claim?
Franz
Onar Ĺm
> Kneeling of Scripps during the last 12 months was 3.5 ppm,
> the largest increase ever measured.
Which is exactly what is to be expected when we've had the
largest El Nino on record.
> : In large due to ENSOs and volcanos. These can be filtered out of the
data
> : and
> : this still shows a downward trend.
> :
>
> Of course you are quoting this again from memory and cannot
> provide a source for this claim?
Actually you just gave a reference which illustrates the point. ENSOs
increase the concentration temporarily.
Onar.
Franz Gerl
: > According to the New Scientist the increase quoting David
Actually the exact opposite is the case. A simple look at
the graph of rising carbon dioxide shows this. The large
increase seems already to be the fingerprint of the beginning
La Nina.
As suspected you do not seem to have a citation for the claim
that there is a downward trend in CO2 accumulation when adjustments
are introduced for El Ninons and volcanoe outbreaks.
Franz
Onar Ĺm
> : > provide a source for this claim?
> :
> : Actually you just gave a reference which illustrates the point. ENSOs
> : increase the concentration temporarily.
> :
> Actually the exact opposite is the case. A simple look at
> the graph of rising carbon dioxide shows this. The large
> increase seems already to be the fingerprint of the beginning
> La Nina.
Excuse me!?!?!? Which physical mechanism do you attribute to this
behavior? It is a well-known fact that ocean solubility decreases
with increased temperatures. Therefore when the ocean is warm, less
CO2 is absorbed than normal. Statistical analyses comparing the
delta-trend of CO2 and global temperatures confirms this. There is
a > 0.5 correlation between global temperatures and delta CO2
delayed 6 months with respect to the temperature data set.
> As suspected you do not seem to have a citation for the claim
> that there is a downward trend in CO2 accumulation when adjustments
> are introduced for El Ninons and volcanoe outbreaks.
I don't have a reference off the top of my head, but it's fairly
simple to show. It's not like a big secret or anything.
Onar.
Franz Gerl
: > :
: > the graph of rising carbon dioxide shows this. The large
: > increase seems already to be the fingerprint of the beginning
: > La Nina.
:
: Excuse me!?!?!? Which physical mechanism do you attribute to this
: behavior? It is a well-known fact that ocean solubility decreases
: with increased temperatures. Therefore when the ocean is warm, less
: CO2 is absorbed than normal. Statistical analyses comparing the
: delta-trend of CO2 and global temperatures confirms this. There is
: a > 0.5 correlation between global temperatures and delta CO2
: delayed 6 months with respect to the temperature data set.
Upon closer examination of the two records it seems like
I have to partially retract my statement. Like the MSU
satellite-temperature record the rate of CO2 accumulation
seems to behave like the derivative of the El Nino-index,
which results in a phase shift of the curves.
The cold water tongue off South America, where CO2 saturated
water is upwelled from the deep ocean acts as an emitter
of carbon dioxide. I have never heard of direct evidence that
the "warm-coke-effect" is already at work. I think
that these short term effects of El Nino upon CO2 accumualtion
have more to do with plant growth and decay on land than with
ocean effects.
Franz
Onar Ĺm
> I have to partially retract my statement. Like the MSU
> satellite-temperature record the rate of CO2 accumulation
> seems to behave like the derivative of the El Nino-index,
> which results in a phase shift of the curves.
That's correct. And the CO2 signal is delayed by about 6 months.
This means that even though the La Nina has been active for several
months we shouldn't see its dampening effect on CO2 until March-
April next year.
> The cold water tongue off South America, where CO2 saturated
> water is upwelled from the deep ocean acts as an emitter
> of carbon dioxide.
Ahem. Cold water *absorbs* CO2.
> I have never heard of direct evidence that
> the "warm-coke-effect" is already at work.
Have a look at a latitudinal breakdown of CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere. You'll find that the CO2 concentration is slightly lower
at high latitudes than near the equator. That's your warm coke effect
right there. Also, if you look at the historical CO2 data you'll find
a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature
of about 8 ppm/C. Then of course there is the laboratory experiments. If
I my memory doesn't fail me I think they show a correlation of about
12 ppm/C, which is neatly in allignment with historical data.
> I think
> that these short term effects of El Nino upon CO2 accumualtion
> have more to do with plant growth and decay on land than with
> ocean effects.
Nix. Nope. Uh-uh. If you look at the amplitude of the annual CO2
oscillation due to plant growth and decay you'll see that it has
risen significantly in the last 30 years. This implies that the
biota is expanding. There's no evidence of a slow down of this
growth in recent years.
Onar.
James G. Acker
: > : > Of course you are quoting this again from memory and cannot
: > : > provide a source for this claim?
: > :
: > : Actually you just gave a reference which illustrates the point. ENSOs
: > : increase the concentration temporarily.
: > Actually the exact opposite is the case. A simple look at
: > the graph of rising carbon dioxide shows this. The large
: > increase seems already to be the fingerprint of the beginning
: > La Nina.
:
: Excuse me!?!?!? Which physical mechanism do you attribute to this
: behavior? It is a well-known fact that ocean solubility decreases
: with increased temperatures. Therefore when the ocean is warm, less
: CO2 is absorbed than normal. Statistical analyses comparing the
: delta-trend of CO2 and global temperatures confirms this. There is
: a > 0.5 correlation between global temperatures and delta CO2
: delayed 6 months with respect to the temperature data set.
I just took a look at the Keeling curve, at fairly high
resolution, and there is hardly any apparent signal from the 1982-1983
El Nino. The amplitude of the seasonal oscillation might possibly
be slightly greater. The most noticeable aberration is after
Pinatubo in 1991, when cooling set in. Increased oceanic CO2
uptake was implicated as the most likely cause, though the reason
for enhanced uptake wasn't as clear.
So I'd say that any significant change in the CO2 trend
has to involve more than just El Nino or La Nina events. At least
that's the impression I get from looking at the curve.
One of the best visualizations of the curve I've found is
http://www.wmo.ch/web/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/877fig5.htm
Excerpting the WMO statement from whence this figure is
referenced:
"The average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa during the 1980s and
1990s has been about 1.4 to 1.5 ppm per year, but with significant
year-to-year variability in the growth rate (Figure 5, URL above). These
fluctuations in growth rate appear to be strongly influenced by the
state of the ENSO, with increases in the growth rate evident during
cold episodes (e.g. 1988/89, 1995/96) and decreases evident during
warm episodes. The very strong 1997/98 ENSO appears to have slowed
the rate of increase by the middle of 1997."
In summary, according to them, ENSO events cause a decrease in
the growth rate of CO2, and La Nina events cause an increase in the
growth rate of CO2.
(I'd guess that the reason no apparent signal is seen from
the 1982-83 El Nino is that it may have been followed by a La Nina --
I don't know for sure -- and that the two events cancel out each other
in terms of the CO2 trend.)
So, Onar, your physical mechanism appeal doesn't seem to be
the explanation for the actual observed trend, even though wrt
to the oceans it's correct! The oceans are a source of CO2 in regions
where the water is warm and wind speeds are low (i.e., equatorial)
and a sink for CO2 where the water is relatively cold and wind speeds
are higher (trade wind belts). So you'd expect that the oceanic
effect on CO2 during an ENSO would be an increase in the CO2 flux
from the equatorial regions, because the warm surface region expands
and the trade winds weaken. But the WMO says CO2 growth rate decreases
during ENSO, so other effects, perhaps terrestrial, must be offsetting
the oceanic influence. Whywhywhy?
Basics:
Warm event = decreased CO2 growth rate = more photosynthesis, less respiration
Cold event = increased CO2 growth rate = less photosynthesis, more respiration
Warm event = warm + wet = longer growing season, more C uptake
Cold event = cold + dry = shorter growing season, less C uptake
I tend to think that's the explanation, and I welcome
alternative interpretations.
Local example: we've been having a really bad drought here
since the beginning of August. Soybeans that should be knee-high
are hardly ankle-high. That means minimal C uptake by the biota, of
course.
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Onar Ĺm
> resolution, and there is hardly any apparent signal from the 1982-1983
> El Nino.
Well, of course there isn't. That El Nino coincided with the El Chicon
eruption which cancelled most of its effect out.
> So I'd say that any significant change in the CO2 trend
> has to involve more than just El Nino or La Nina events.
Yes, volcano eruptions also has significant impact on the CO2
trend.
> In summary, according to them, ENSO events cause a decrease in
> the growth rate of CO2, and La Nina events cause an increase in the
> growth rate of CO2.
That's absurd! There is no scientific justification for that. Have a look
at the following breakdown of CO2 change:
cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/figures/co2trend_global.gif
You can easily pick out the 82, 87 and 92-95 El Nino as spikes, and
the 89 and 96-97 La Ninas and of course Pinatubo as dips. The data ends
at the end of 97, but so far 1998 looks to be a major boost in CO2. Franz
suggested as high as 3.5 ppm, no doubt because of the strong 98 El Nino.
The
The correlation between temperature and CO2 in the last 40 years or so
can better be seen here:
http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/cald05.gif
> But the WMO says CO2 growth rate decreases
> during ENSO,
But this is false! I have no idea why they write this. It's so
obviously out of sync with observations!
> so other effects, perhaps terrestrial, must be offsetting
> the oceanic influence. Whywhywhy?
>
> Basics:
>
> Warm event = decreased CO2 growth rate = more photosynthesis, less
respiration
The warming spells definitely has an impact on growth rates. There was an
article
in Science not too long ago which claimed that biomass growth rates
increased one
to three years after a warm spell.
> I tend to think that's the explanation, and I welcome
> alternative interpretations.
It's a brave attempt, but ENSOs and volcanos still swamp the biota signal.
As
we've seen, ENSOs and volcanos can cause variations of up to several ppm,
whereas variations in biota growth rates is less than 1 ppm.
Onar.
Fred McGalliard
> > The cold water tongue off South America, where CO2 saturated
> > water is upwelled from the deep ocean acts as an emitter
> > of carbon dioxide.
>
> Ahem. Cold water *absorbs* CO2.
The point, I thought, was that this water has already absorbed enough
CO2 that when it reaches the typical surface temperature around the
upwelling point CO2 must be emitted. Although you might be right that it
would absorb some CO2 before warming up and rereleasing it.
...
> > I think
> > that these short term effects of El Nino upon CO2 accumualtion
> > have more to do with plant growth and decay on land than with
> > ocean effects.
>
> Nix. Nope. Uh-uh. If you look at the amplitude of the annual CO2
> oscillation due to plant growth and decay you'll see that it has
> risen significantly in the last 30 years. This implies that the
> biota is expanding. There's no evidence of a slow down of this
> growth in recent years.
Could imply that the biota are expanding. And increasing temperature
difference for the ocean surface could also produce this effect, as well
as a shift in the biota from longer lived to shorter lived organisms, as
a shift from forest to grass land. Is there any supporting proof that
the biomass is in fact increasing?
James G. Acker
: > I just took a look at the Keeling curve, at fairly high
: > El Nino.
:
: Well, of course there isn't. That El Nino coincided with the El Chicon
: eruption which cancelled most of its effect out.
That may be.
: > So I'd say that any significant change in the CO2 trend
: > has to involve more than just El Nino or La Nina events.
:
: Yes, volcano eruptions also has significant impact on the CO2
: trend.
Well, even given the El Chichon eruption, the only discernible
impact on the Keeling curve (not the growth rate curve) was the
Pinatubo eruption.
: > In summary, according to them, ENSO events cause a decrease in
: > the growth rate of CO2, and La Nina events cause an increase in the
: > growth rate of CO2.
:
: That's absurd! There is no scientific justification for that. Have a look
: at the following breakdown of CO2 change:
:
: cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/figures/co2trend_global.gif
:
: You can easily pick out the 82, 87 and 92-95 El Nino as spikes, and
: the 89 and 96-97 La Ninas and of course Pinatubo as dips. The data ends
: at the end of 97, but so far 1998 looks to be a major boost in CO2. Franz
: suggested as high as 3.5 ppm, no doubt because of the strong 98 El Nino.
: The
: The correlation between temperature and CO2 in the last 40 years or so
: can better be seen here:
That's a great graph. However, I can't interpret it the same
way you do, because of the other evidence I've found.
I interpret the x-axis of the growth rate curve such that the
years are bracketed by the tic marks. I.e., 1981 data is represented by
the left y-axis to the leftmost tic mark. If that's correct, the
growth rate increases during 1982 and reverses almost at the stroke
of 1983. Remembering that the major impact of El Nino events begins
in the winter, that would mean that the growth rate is decreasing
during 1983, and reverses to about the mean value in 1984.
I have very reasonable and understandable supporting evidence
for this interpretation, because basically I think that both of us
were wrong in our previously proposed explanations. Bear with me.
: http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/cald05.gif
I took a look at this plot but it really doesn't make a lot
of sense to me. Doesn't really matter, though.
: > But the WMO says CO2 growth rate decreases
: > during ENSO,
:
: But this is false! I have no idea why they write this. It's so
: obviously out of sync with observations!
Bear with me a little longer. I think it's accurate.
: > so other effects, perhaps terrestrial, must be offsetting
: > the oceanic influence. Whywhywhy?
: >
: > Basics:
: >
: > Warm event = decreased CO2 growth rate = more photosynthesis, less
: respiration
:
: The warming spells definitely has an impact on growth rates. There was an
: article
: in Science not too long ago which claimed that biomass growth rates
: increased one
: to three years after a warm spell.
After a bit more investigation, I think that this is a secondary
effect.
: > I tend to think that's the explanation, and I welcome
: > alternative interpretations.
:
: It's a brave attempt, but ENSOs and volcanos still swamp the biota signal.
: As
: we've seen, ENSOs and volcanos can cause variations of up to several ppm,
: whereas variations in biota growth rates is less than 1 ppm.
You are most definitely correct, ENSO is an important event
causing variation. Pinatubo-class eruptions are even more important,
but fortunately much rarer.
Now for the rest of the story:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/elnino.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/review/object4.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/review/anomaly.html
Put simply, El Nino conditions suppress the upwelling of CO2-
enriched water along the Equatorial upwelling, the largest upwelling
system in the world. This in turn reduces the flux of CO2 substantially,
by 50% according to this data. (Normal vs. El Nino conditions)
The anomaly figure is particularly telling. There were
negative CO2 flux anomalies in 82-83 and 91-94. The positive
CO2 flux anomaly in 1989 -- a La Nina year -- is huge.
Looking at the growth rate curve again, we see a big decrease
in growth rate during 1991, when the weird 1991-1994 period began.
(Conditions in the Pacific oscillated between El Nino and non-El Nino
for these three years.) So there's some sense of recovery of the rate
subsequent to 1991, though the growth rate is not at a maxima --
presumably due to Pinatubo aftereffects. (Note that the dip in
rate in 1991 starts before Pinatubo, which erupted in July.) The PMEL
CO2 flux anomalies are negative in 1991-1994.
Correlated interpretation:
http://masig.fsu.edu/~meyers/abstracts/co2.html
(I think that "El Viejo" in this abstract = La Nina.)
I'm now satisfied that this is the _real_ story on how El
Nino and La Nina influence atmospheric CO2 on a year-to-year
basis. Plus, it correlates with the observation that CO2 is spiking
upward as La Nina gets established in the Pacific this year, because if
the upwelling is particularly robust then the CO2 flux is going to be
augmented. So, apparently, the physical oceanographic factors that
influence upwelling are more important than the physical/chemical
factors that affect air-sea gas content, i.e., temperature.
Paul D. Farrar
>> Just out of curiosity, what kind of scientist are you? The last I
>> heard, you were a musician and some kind of computer programmer.
>
>I'm a systems engineer and work at Intelligenesis Corp. as director
>of natural language engineering. I've also for years been working with
>biomass and municipal solid waste gasification in Lappgas Inc.
>
>> That's because all indications are that that will be the lifetime. Why
>> do you think it's shorter? Why do experts think it's centuries?
>> Archer, Khesghi, and Maier-Reimer go for 200-450 years, depending on
>> rate of emission. You should read that paper, although you will have
>> to learn carbonate chemistry to understand most of it. Do you realize
>> that Starr's (an electrical engineer) claimed short lifetime, which
>> Dietze cites as support, was due to his making an amateurish mistake
>> which any oceanographer would immediately spot. This has been pointed
>> out in both the 1995 IPCC report and _Tellus_, but people like Dietze
>> just keep repeating it.
>
>
>I have no problems seeing this. Nevertheless I've lived long enough to
>know that even the best models may fall. Not many years ago all the
>experts were certain that methane would approximately double in the
>next century. Now it seems that growth has almost completely stopped.
One can't just pick the value one wants and make vague aspersions
about models. Dietze's argument is itself based on a model, and a
physically unrealistic one. If the "best may fail", what about ones
based upon nonexistent physical principles? The absorption lifetime
estimates (by oceanographers, that is) predate any significant
modeling and were based on observation of such things as distribution
of natural (nutrients, stable isotope ratios, etc.) and manmade (14C,
3H, CFCs) tracers, and oceanic mixing and circulation. There is a huge
volume of observational data that must be taken into account, as
people like Broecker, Sarmiento, Archer etc. do. Ahlbeck and Dietze
are not only unaware of this data, but apparently cannot conceive of
its potential existance. Absorption rates cannot be measured directly
and do have significant uncertainty, but the observational data place
strong constraints on the magnitude which preclude very short
lifetimes such as that of Dietze. His lifetime is about the same as
the dilution decay time of 14C. This makes it physically implausible,
because the dilution would be accomplished by absorption, and thus not
allow carbon exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and
biosphere at the levels observed. There is a good reason Starr (the
electrical engineer, not the meteorologist) had an absorption lifetime
equal to the mixing decay time: he didn't know what he was doing and
got the two mixed up!
>
>> >And these models are currently predicting a rise significantly greater
>than
>> >the one observed. The average increase for the 90s has been around 1.4
>ppm
>> >per year. IPCC predicts a rise of more than 2.5 ppm per year.
>>
>> There was a drop during the early 90s due to Pinatubo.
>
>Well, we're in the late 90s now and the increases are still low, despite
>the fact that global temperatures recovered years ago. (last year the
>increase was about 1 ppm) And perhaps more importantly, there is a
>significant
>downward trend in the airborne fraction over the last 30 years.
This is completely backwards. For the period from 1960-95, the slope
of the (atmospheric increase)/emission is statistically
indistinguishable from zero. Thus there is no basis in reality for
claiming a "significant downward trend in the airborne fraction".
>
>> The year to
>> year values are quite variable,
>
>In large due to ENSOs and volcanos. These can be filtered out of the data
>and
>this still shows a downward trend.
A lot of the fluctuation is just due to the fact that the atmospheric
increase is the difference between two large and variable numbers.
There is no overall detectable trend in the data.
>
>
>> but on average about half of human
>> emissions stay in the atmosphere. The IPCC numbers I've seen keep
>> fairly close to that value for the next few decades anyway. That is
>> about 1.4/yr for current levels. What reference predicts a rise of
>> 2.5/yr for the present.
>
>I'm only basing that on memory. It was from one of the IPCC reports.
Yesterday I realized where you got that number. Increases per year are
around 1.4ppmv or about 2.5 gigatonnes carbon.
>
>
>> >The ocean's capacity is 50 times greater than the atmosphere content.
>> >We will run out of fossil fuels long before the oceans are saturated.
>>
>> The ocean CONTAINS about 50 times the CO2 equivalent of the
>> atmosphere. It does not have 50 times the CAPACITY of the atmosphere
>> for additional CO2. There is a difference. This was one of the big
>> mistakes Dietze made in his "new carbon cycle model", but it's an easy
>> mistake for him to make, if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
>> Do you wonder why you have to find his paper on crank web sites,
>> instead of in a research journal? Do you understand why, if one adds
>> about 6 times preindustrial CO2 to the atmosphere, about 5 parts will
>> go into the oceans and about 1 will stay in the atmosphere, doubling
>> its level?
>
>Looks to me like equilibrial chemistry. But this ignores the role of
>biology. When you add in the effect of CO2 fertilization you most
>likely get significantly less than a doubling. How much less? That
>depends on the biota uptake. One thing is sure though: CO2 increase
>is slowed significantly by enhanced plant growth.
The land biota (CO2 fertilization doesn't really exist in the ocean.)
can affect the short term level trajectory, and so is important for
the coming century or two. In the longer term, the atmospheric level
is relatively resistant to its effects. The reason is that the
atmospheric level is set by ocean processes, which will largely
compensate for land biosphere (living and dead) storage.
vr...@my-dejanews.com
"Onar Åm" <on...@netpower.no> wrote:
Franz Gerl wrote:
> > As suspected you do not seem to have a citation for the claim
> > that there is a downward trend in CO2 accumulation when adjustments
> > are introduced for El Ninons and volcanoe outbreaks.
> I don't have a reference off the top of my head, but it's fairly
> simple to show. It's not like a big secret or anything.
This is the same as the MSU vs radiosonde beef.
Co2 accumulation and temperatures both rise 1958 to 1979 and then are
essentially level thru 1997 and then rise again in 1998.
Onar can get a falling co2 accumulation rate only by ignoring 1958-1979 and
1998.
(1958 is when accurate measurements began.)
To put this in perspective, look at this graph and put the final co2
growth/accumulation plot point at .03 Watts/m sqd/year:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/fig3.GIF
*****
Appendix:
I got the .03 Watts/m sqd/year by taking the 3.5 ppm that Franz Gerl supplied
a couple posts earlier in this thread which was from:
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/global/global98/fred981104.html
(The article says 35 ppm, but that's an obvious mistake.)
and tacking it unto the end of this:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2
I took the last column (annual) -- subtracting one year from the next --
and divided by the total amount of atmospheric co2 to get a rate of change
and made a graph.
Then I tried different running averages, attempting to make it look as much
like
the previously mentioned
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/fig3.GIF
as possible, and I finally settled on a 4-year running average.
Technically, I suppose I should have used geometric running averages instead
of arithmetic, but my simple speadsheet doesn't supply such things.
.03 Watts/m sqd/year was my resulting final plot point
***********************
Jon Larson
vr...@my-dejanews.com
pka
jl...@primenet.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Onar Ĺm
>
>
> I took a look at this plot but it really doesn't make a lot
> of sense to me. Doesn't really matter, though.
Yes, it does. If it doesn't make sense to you, let me explain it. Calder
replicated the analysis Steve Hemphill did a year ago or so, namely to
calculate the correlation between the CO2 derivative and the temperature
derivative. The CO2 signal was phase shifted back and forth in time to
see if there was any correlation with previous or future years. As you can
see there is a staggering POSITIVE correlation between CO2 and temperature
in the same year. That is, if there is a major temperature boost one year,
CO2 is very likely to boost as well.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> > simple to show. It's not like a big secret or anything.
>
> This is the same as the MSU vs radiosonde beef.
>
> Co2 accumulation and temperatures both rise 1958 to 1979 and then are
> essentially level thru 1997 and then rise again in 1998.
Wrong, they rise from 1958 through 1998.
> To put this in perspective, look at this graph and put the final co2
> growth/accumulation plot point at .03 Watts/m sqd/year:
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/fig3.GIF
What on *earth* does the growth rate of radiative forcing have to do
with the growth rate of CO2? These two are not directly comparable
since the first is a composite of many other factors as well.
> I got the .03 Watts/m sqd/year by taking the 3.5 ppm that Franz Gerl
supplied
> a couple posts earlier in this thread which was from:
>
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/global/global98/fred981104.html
> (The article says 35 ppm, but that's an obvious mistake.)
And interestingly it claims that it occured _last year_ (i.e. 1997) when
the
rise was only about 1 ppm. These new scientist people don't impress me.
> and tacking it unto the end of this:
> http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2
> I took the last column (annual) -- subtracting one year from the next --
> and divided by the total amount of atmospheric co2 to get a rate of
change
> and made a graph.
Well, in that case the rate of change is *definitely* retarding since CO2
increase has been approximately constant for the past 30 years.
I have no idea of what point you were trying to make.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> of the (atmospheric increase)/emission is statistically
> indistinguishable from zero. Thus there is no basis in reality for
> claiming a "significant downward trend in the airborne fraction".
30 years ago our emissions were about 4 GtC/yr, and on average CO2
concentration rose about 1.4 ppm/yr. Today we emit 6.5 GtC/yr and
the rise is *still* 1.4/yr on average. Thus the sinks absorb about
2.5 GtC more now than they did 30 years ago. I would hardly call that
"indistinguishable from zero."
> A lot of the fluctuation is just due to the fact that the atmospheric
> increase is the difference between two large and variable numbers.
> There is no overall detectable trend in the data.
Yes, there is. The variation in CO2 content is strongly correlated with
variations in temperature.
> Yesterday I realized where you got that number. Increases per year are
> around 1.4ppmv or about 2.5 gigatonnes carbon.
No, 1.4 ppm corresponds to 3 GtC. Today emissions are about 6.8 GtC per
year, which corresponds to about 3.2 ppm per year. Work your way from this
number.
> The land biota (CO2 fertilization doesn't really exist in the ocean.)
> can affect the short term level trajectory, and so is important for
> the coming century or two.
I'm glad we agree on this.
Onar.
vr...@my-dejanews.com
I, Jon Larson wrote >>
Onar Am wrote >> >
Franz Gerl wrote >> >>
>> >> As suspected you do not seem to have a citation for the claim
>> >> that there is a downward trend in CO2 accumulation when adjustments
>> >> are introduced for El Ninons and volcanoe outbreaks.
>> > I don't have a reference off the top of my head, but it's fairly
>> > simple to show. It's not like a big secret or anything.
>> CO2 accumulation and temperatures both rise 1958 to 1979 and then are
>> essentially level thru 1997 and then rise again in 1998.
>Wrong, they rise from 1958 through 1998.
According to you, CO2 growth rates have a "downward trend" as they "rise".
This seems contradictory to me.
Could you please explain?
Before the recent 3.5 ppm increase was revealed, James Hansen wrote
"CO2 growth rate leveled off in the past two decades"
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/
Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era
Joshua Halpern
SNIP..
> > To put this in perspective, look at this graph and put the final co2
> > growth/accumulation plot point at .03 Watts/m sqd/year:
> > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/fig3.GIF
> What on *earth* does the growth rate of radiative forcing have to do
> with the growth rate of CO2? These two are not directly comparable
> since the first is a composite of many other factors as well.
Simple. Both are correlated with economic activity. Emission
of CO2, aerosols and aerosol forming materials, other greenhouse
gases, etc have a lot to do with economic activity, you would
expect a fairly strong correlation. Efficiency increases,
for example would probably effect CO2 and the other greenhouse
gases in a similar manner.
josh halpern
I R A Aggie
(James G. Acker) wrote:
+ http://masig.fsu.edu/~meyers/abstracts/co2.html
That really should be:
<url:http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~meyers/abstracts/co2.html>
MASIG hasn't existed in a loooooong time. Please update your bookmarks!
+ (I think that "El Viejo" in this abstract = La Nina.)
Yes.
James
Onar Ĺm
> of CO2, aerosols and aerosol forming materials, other greenhouse
> gases, etc have a lot to do with economic activity, you would
> expect a fairly strong correlation. Efficiency increases,
> for example would probably effect CO2 and the other greenhouse
> gases in a similar manner.
That's all very nice, but how does that contradict the fact that
the airborne fraction is decreasing?
Onar.
charliew
vr...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <734hbb$669$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Onar Am wrote >
>I, Jon Larson wrote >>
>Onar Am wrote >> >
>Franz Gerl wrote >> >>
>
>>> >> As suspected you do not seem to have a citation for the claim
>>> >> that there is a downward trend in CO2 accumulation when adjustments
>>> >> are introduced for El Ninons and volcanoe outbreaks.
>
>>> > I don't have a reference off the top of my head, but it's fairly
>>> > simple to show. It's not like a big secret or anything.
>
>>> CO2 accumulation and temperatures both rise 1958 to 1979 and then are
>>> essentially level thru 1997 and then rise again in 1998.
>
>>Wrong, they rise from 1958 through 1998.
>
>According to you, CO2 growth rates have a "downward trend" as they "rise".
>This seems contradictory to me.
>Could you please explain?
>
>Before the recent 3.5 ppm increase was revealed, James Hansen wrote
>"CO2 growth rate leveled off in the past two decades"
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/
>Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era
Read his statement again. He said that the growth *rate* leveled off, not
the CO2 concentration. Example: While travelling in a car, your velocity
can level off (acceleration goes to zero), even though your position is
continuously changing.
Joshua Halpern
out the context. This is the second time you've
tried this on me. Your original statement, which
I made a comment on is
Onar
>>>What on *earth* does the growth rate of radiative
>>>forcing have to do with the growth rate of CO2?
>>>These two are not directly comparable since the
>>>first is a composite of many other factors as well.
To which I provided a reasonable reply:
> > Simple. Both are correlated with economic activity.
> > Emission of CO2, aerosols and aerosol forming
> > materials, other greenhouse gases, etc have a
> > lot to do with economic activity, you would
> > expect a fairly strong correlation. Efficiency
> > increases, for example would probably effect CO2
> > and the other greenhouse gases in a similar manner.
Which, I take from your snide comment at the end of your
last post
> That's all very nice, but how does that contradict
> the fact that the airborne fraction is decreasing?
means that you now understand that there is at least
one plausible explanation for a correlation between
total radiative forcing and CO2, beyond the obvious
one, that atmospheric CO2 contributes a significant
amount to the total radiative forcing
Thank you
josh halpern
Onar Ĺm
> Which, I take from your snide comment at the end of your
> last post
>
> > That's all very nice, but how does that contradict
> > the fact that the airborne fraction is decreasing?
>
> means that you now understand that there is at least
> one plausible explanation for a correlation between
> total radiative forcing and CO2, beyond the obvious
> one, that atmospheric CO2 contributes a significant
> amount to the total radiative forcing
What do you mean "now understand" ? *Of course* I understand it,
it's blatantly obvious. The thing I don't understand is why this
was brought in as an argument in the first place. I never talked
about radiative forcing. I talked about the CO2 concentration
rate history. Then whatshisname started talking about radiative
forcing. I don't mind that. I like talking about radiative forcing,
but I don't understand why that was relevant to what I was talking
about. Please enlighten me.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
"rise".
> This seems contradictory to me.
> Could you please explain?
Yes, I will. If you derivate the annual mean CO2 record you get the rate of
change history. This graph will show you positive numbers since CO2 has
risen
continuously since 1958. HOWEVER, you will note that the concentration is
not
rising as much now as it did, just ten years ago. I.e. there is a downward
trend in the rate of change. The trend is not statistically significant, so
we need to wait 10-20 years to distinguish it from random fluctuation. But
if
we instead look at the airborne fraction i.e. the percentage of human
emissions
that remain in the atmosphere after one year (This is just emission minus
CO2
rise) Here there IS a significant downward trend. 30 years ago we emitted
about
4 GtC per year. Today we're emitting more than 6.5 GtC per year, but the
CO2
concentration is not rising any faster now than it did 30 years ago.
> Before the recent 3.5 ppm increase was revealed, James Hansen wrote
> "CO2 growth rate leveled off in the past two decades"
Which means that CO2 stopped growing exponentially and started growing
linearly instead.
Onar.
Paul D. Farrar
[unmarked cuts by Onar]
">> " is me (Paul Farrar).
>> This is completely backwards. For the period from 1960-95, the slope
>> of the (atmospheric increase)/emission is statistically
>> indistinguishable from zero. Thus there is no basis in reality for
>> claiming a "significant downward trend in the airborne fraction".
>
>concentration rose about 1.4 ppm/yr. Today we emit 6.5 GtC/yr and
>the rise is *still* 1.4/yr on average. Thus the sinks absorb about
>2.5 GtC more now than they did 30 years ago. I would hardly call that
>"indistinguishable from zero."
Your numbers are just made up.
Here are real numbers.
Cols 1 and 4 are year.
Cols 2 and 3 are cumulative and annual emissions in MtC (million
metric tonnes of carbon) from Oak Ridge CDIAC dataset ndp030.
Col 5 is atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppmv (parts/million by
volume) from Keeling's Mauna Loa set, also from CDIAC. There is some
bad data for 1964, so there is no annual average that year. The 63-65
average is 0.52ppmv/yr.
Col 6 is one I made by taking the difference from the previous year.
1959 84922 2452 1959 315.83
1960 87485 2563 1960 316.75 0.92
1961 90062 2577 1961 317.49 0.74
1962 92743 2681 1962 318.3 0.81
1963 95569 2826 1963 318.83 0.53
1964 98558 2989 1964 0.52* (see note)
1965 101685 3127 1965 319.87 0.52*
1966 104970 3285 1966 321.21 1.34
1967 108369 3399 1967 322.02 0.81
1968 111940 3571 1968 322.89 0.87
1969 115729 3789 1969 324.46 1.57
1970 119793 4064 1970 325.52 1.06
1971 124020 4227 1971 326.16 0.64
1972 128415 4395 1972 327.29 1.13
1973 133048 4633 1973 329.51 2.22
1974 137689 4641 1974 330.08 0.57
1975 142302 4613 1975 330.99 0.91
1976 147182 4880 1976 331.98 0.99
1977 152200 5018 1977 333.73 1.75
1978 157266 5066 1978 335.34 1.61
1979 162614 5348 1979 336.68 1.34
1980 167893 5279 1980 338.52 1.84
1981 173002 5109 1981 339.76 1.24
1982 178071 5069 1982 340.96 1.2
1983 183131 5060 1983 342.61 1.65
1984 188362 5231 1984 344.25 1.64
1985 193766 5404 1985 345.73 1.48
1986 199362 5596 1986 346.97 1.24
1987 205085 5723 1987 348.75 1.78
1988 211032 5947 1988 351.31 2.56
1989 217085 6053 1989 352.75 1.44
1990 223194 6109 1990 354.04 1.29
1991 229372 6178 1991 355.48 1.44
1992 235456 6084 1992 356.29 0.81
1993 241509 6053 1993 356.99 0.7
1994 247708 6199 1994 358.88 1.89
1995 254120 6412 1995 360.9 2.02
1996 362.57 1.67
You will note that 30 years ago the annual increase was almost always
well below 1.4 ppmv/yr, and that more recently it is usually above it.
Note the short-lived dive in 92-93, which Acker has explained to you.
If you do a regression to determine if the portion of emissions which
remain in the atmosphere has changed with time, ie year as x, and (col
6)/(col 3) as y, you will find that the slope cannot be statistically
distinguished from zero. The p level is 66%, and most workers require
5% or lower for significance of regression.
Therefore, there is no justification in the observations for stating
that the fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere has changed
(in either direction).
If I remember correctly, Connolley did the same calculation
independently and got the same answer.
>
[unmarked cuts by Onar]
>> A lot of the fluctuation is just due to the fact that the atmospheric
>> increase is the difference between two large and variable numbers.
>> There is no overall detectable trend in the data.
>
>Yes, there is. The variation in CO2 content is strongly correlated with
>variations in temperature.
>
[unmarked cuts by Onar]
>> Yesterday I realized where you got that number. Increases per year are
>> around 1.4ppmv or about 2.5 gigatonnes carbon.
>
>No, 1.4 ppm corresponds to 3 GtC.
That would be why I used the words "around" and "about".
> Today emissions are about 6.8 GtC per
>year, which corresponds to about 3.2 ppm per year. Work your way from this
>number.
I find it easier to multiply by atomic weight of C, divide by mean
molecular weight of air, and multiply by the mass of the atmosphere.
>
>
[unmarked cuts by Onar]
>> The land biota (CO2 fertilization doesn't really exist in the ocean.)
>> can affect the short term level trajectory, and so is important for
>> the coming century or two.
[unmarked cuts by Onar]
>
>I'm glad we agree on this.
>
[unmarked cuts by Onar]
vr...@my-dejanews.com
Onar Am wrote >
Jon Larson wrote >>
>CO2 has risen continuously since 1958. HOWEVER, you will note that the
>concentration is not rising as much now as it did, just ten years ago. I.e.
>there is a downward trend in the rate of change.
Ten years? In article 30 of 70 of this thread I wrote: "Onar can get a
falling co2 accumulation rate only by ignoring 1958-1979 and 1998." Perhaps
some confusion would have been avoided if I had written: "Onar can get a
falling co2 *growth* rate only by ignoring 1958-1979 and 1998." I only used
the term accumulation because Franz Gerl used it and I thought that it would
be simpler not to change terminology. However I believe the statement is true
either way.
>The trend is not statistically significant, so we need to wait 10-20 years
Why not use the data back to 1958?
Plus the recent 3.5 ppm figure for 1998?
Just as I said in article 30 of 70 of this thread:
"This is the same as the MSU vs radiosonde beef."
>But if we instead look at the airborne fraction
In article 17 of 70 of this thread Franz Gerl was not asking for a citation
about declining airborne fractions. Ditto article 19 of 70.
(However I'd have to wade through articles 12(Am), 14(Farrar), 15(Am),
17(Gerl), and 19(Gerl) to prove this, so I won't bother.)
>> Before the recent 3.5 ppm increase was revealed, James Hansen wrote
>> "CO2 growth rate leveled off in the past two decades"
>Which means that CO2 stopped growing exponentially and started growing
>linearly instead.
If the slope of a curve is constant, that means it's linear. If the growth
rate of a curve is constant (level), that means it's exponential. If the
growth rate is increasing (as it was for CO2 in the 1970's) start worrying.
(However -- I will grant you that if you extend that level rate of growth
that Hansen shows at:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/fig3.GIF for anything less
than 100 years, the resulting exponential is difficult to distinguish from
linear.)
vr...@my-dejanews.com
"charliew" <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
Jon Larson wrote:
Onar Am wrote:
Jon Larson wrote:
>>>>CO2 accumulation and temperatures both rise 1958 to 1979 and then are
>>>>essentially level thru 1997 and then rise again in 1998.
>>>Wrong, they rise from 1958 through 1998.
>>According to you, CO2 growth rates have a "downward trend" as they "rise".
>>This seems contradictory to me.
>>Could you please explain?
>>Before the recent 3.5 ppm increase was revealed, James Hansen wrote
>>"CO2 growth rate leveled off in the past two decades"
>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/hansen.05/
>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/
>>Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era
> Read his statement again. He said that the growth *rate* leveled off, not
> the CO2 concentration. Example: While travelling in a car, your velocity
> can level off (acceleration goes to zero), even though your position is
> continuously changing.
Thanks.
I was very mystified that you would tell me such an obvious thing.
I think my main problem was that I was thinking "co2 growth rate...rise" but
writing "co2 accumulation...rise".
I apologize to everyone.
Joshua Halpern
Onar, you're catching a bit of backwash, but tough.
Your post had several parts. I responded to
one. You're pissed off because I did not
reply to the one you wanted. Tough. You
don't like it, go join Uncle Al's INTERNET
cops.
Onar
>>>What on *earth* does the growth rate of radiative
>>>forcing have to do with the growth rate of CO2?
>>>These two are not directly comparable since the
>>>first is a composite of many other factors as well.
To which I provided a reasonable reply:
> > Simple. Both are correlated with economic activity.
SNIP...
> > > That's all very nice, but how does that contradict
> > > the fact that the airborne fraction is decreasing?
> >
> > means that you now understand that there is at least
> > one plausible explanation for a correlation between
> > total radiative forcing and CO2, beyond the obvious
> > one, that atmospheric CO2 contributes a significant
> > amount to the total radiative forcing
> What do you mean "now understand" ? *Of course* I understand it,
> it's blatantly obvious.
Then why did you write in your original post
> The thing I don't understand is why this
> was brought in as an argument in the first place. I never talked
> about radiative forcing. I talked about the CO2 concentration
> rate history. Then whatshisname started talking about radiative
> forcing. I don't mind that. I like talking about radiative forcing,
> but I don't understand why that was relevant to what I was talking
> about. Please enlighten me.
Read your own words:
>>>What on *earth* does the growth rate of radiative
>>>forcing have to do with the growth rate of CO2?
>>>These two are not directly comparable since the
>>>first is a composite of many other factors as well
Basically, one should be a fairly good marker for the
other.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> Yes, I will. If you derivate the annual mean CO2 record
> you get the rate of change history. This graph will show
> not rising as much now as it did, just ten years ago. I.e.
> we need to wait 10-20 years to distinguish it from
> random fluctuation. But if we instead look at the
> airborne fraction i.e. the percentage of human
> emissions that remain in the atmosphere after
> one year (This is just emission minus CO2
> rise) Here there IS a significant downward
> trend. 30 years ago we emitted about 4 GtC
> per year. Today we're emitting more than 6.5
> GtC per year, but the CO2 concentration is
> not rising any faster now than it did 30 years ago.
Not really, this is driven by the so called
missing carbon sink (remember there was an
article about having found this a few weeks
ago which ws discussed here). In fact by
looking at both O2/N2 gradients and CO2
gradients, Keeling by 1996 at the latest
had deduced the size of the Northern
Hemisphere sink which accounts for the
missing carbon. (See long excerpt below)
Now, looking at an article by JF Kasting
and JCG Walker, on The Geochemical Carbon
Cycle and the Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2
I see a curve which shows the atmospheric
CO2 concentration from 1740 to 1985 or so
and the CO2 concentration from a model
which excludes biota flux and CO2
fertilization effects. The latter, lies
considerably ABOVE the former. However,
by using the function
F(CO2) = 2.22 [1-exp{-0.003(pCO2-80)}]
to model relative C3 plant growth rates,.
one achieves an almost perfect match over
the period 1740 to 1985, with the exception
that there is a small buldge of the measured
pCO2 over the modeled from about 1820 to
1940, much of which can be ascribed to the
pioneer effect (cutting down forests and
clearing land).
Their business as usual scenarios assuming
that forests are maintained predicts a
peak CO2 in about 2300 at levels of
1000 ppm assuming enhanced growth, constant decay
1500 ppm " enhanced growth, enhanced decay
just a short quote:
START QUOTE
Taken at face value these results would seem to
indicate that preserving the forests is more important
in the long term than is conserving fossil fuel.
This conclusion may be premature, however, for
two reasons: First, as mentioned earlier,
CO2 fertilization may be less effective for
natural ecosystems than it is in a controlled
environment [I believe this means when there
may be other limiting factors-jh]. Second,
even if trees do grow faster in a high CO2
environment, it is not obvious that soil
carbon storage will increase proportionally.
Indeed, Houghton and Woodwell have argued
convincingly, we believe, that soil carbon
storage will likely decrease as the climate
warms. Their prediction is based partly on
the observation that tropical soils today contain
much less carbon than do soils in temporate and
boreal ecosystems. The reason is that organic
material decays much faster in a warm climate.
Thus, if global warming converts temperate
ecosystems into subtropical ones, much of the
organic carbon stored in these soils could
be returned to the atmosphere.
END QUOTE
josh halpern
From Keeling, Piper and Heimann Nature 381(1996) 218.
The plot of delta(O2/N2)GRAD vs (CO2) GRAD [note
these are the derivatives or gradients that Onar
is talking about-jbh] from 1991 to 1994 is shown in
Fig. 3a. The data show clear interannual variations,
with both gradients being largest in absolute value
in 1991 and early 1992, and smallest in early 1993.
The average CO2 gradient is close to the 3 ppm gradient
observed during the middle 1980s. As seen in Fig 3a
the time averaged gradients are both smaller in
absolute value than predicted from fossil fuel
burning alone using an atmospheric transport
model [Halpern: this is what Onar is talking
about]. In seeking an explanation for the reduction
of both gradients, we note that CO2 uptake by
land biota in the Northern Hemisphere decreases
both gradients, wheras transport by the North
Atlantic thermohaline circulation decreases the CO2
gradient while incresing the O2/N2 gradient. The
Atlantic Ocean pumps O2 realtive to N2 in the
same direction (north to south) as CO2 becasue the
flux of both gases is primarily caused by
temperature dependent solubility differences
between northward and southward flowing waters.
The relative oceanic transport of O2 and CO2 can
be estimated from ocean tracer distributions.
We find from model simultions similar to those in
Table I, that the gradients in O2/N2 ratio and
CO2 concentration can neither be simultaneously
explained by combining fossil fuel burning
and land-biotic exchanges alone, nor can they
be explained by additionally including an
Atlantic thermohaline component if the latter
is based on north-south transport as large as
o.6 PgC/yr or larger. A consistent explanation
of both gradients is possible however. [This
is what Onar is asking for, and explanation
of the CO2 gradient-jh]. We illustrate this
by starting with a priori estimates of the
oceanic and fossil fuel contributions to the
north-south gradients plus an arbitrary land
biotic contribution, and then adjusting these
using an objective method to construct a
consistent model as summarized in Table
I and Fig 3b.
The consistent model is achieved without major
adjustments in the oceanic components. The
Atlantic thermohaline transport of 0.4 pgC/yr
is partially offset by a component due to
oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 which
increases the CO2 gradient but does not
effect the O2/N2 gradient. The total oceanic
contribution to the grdient is constrained
to be quite small (-0.32 +/- 0.43 ppm) so that
most of the reduction in CO2 gradient must be
explained by land biota.
The total land biotic component (-1.31 +/- 0.87)
ppm has a relatively large uncertainty, however,
because it has an O2/CO2 signature similar to
the much larger fossil fuel component and is thus
affected by small percentge errors in the
estimated production and atmospheric transport
of fossil fuel CO2.
Land biota can influence the CO2 and O2/N2 gradients
both by net annual exchanges and also by purely
seasonal exchanges that are rectified by seasonal
variations in atmospheric mixing. Taking an estimate
of +0.62 +/- 0.33 ppm for the gradient due to
rectification based on the two ranges of model
predictions for the sites under considertion, we
calculate by difference a residual component due
to net exchanges (-1l93 +/- 0.93 ppm). The
only plausible explanation for such a gradient is
net exchange of CO2 with land biota in the
Northern Hemisphere, because tropical exchanges
have minimal effect on the north south gradient,
and because there is relatively little extra-
troptical land biota in the Southern Hemisphere.
The gradient (-1.93 +/- 0.93 ppm) requires
a northern sink of about 1.9 +/- 0.9 pg C/yr,
assuming that the sink is proportional to net
primary production on land between 39 and 63 N.
Thus, we find that the net CO2 uptake by land
biota in the Northern Hemisphere which is needed
by our analysis to explain the north-south gradients
is similar in magnitude to the net uptake required
at the global scale by the interannual trends in
O2/N2 ratio and CO2 concentration
Onar Ĺm
> and JCG Walker, on The Geochemical Carbon
> Cycle and the Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2
> I see a curve which shows the atmospheric
> CO2 concentration from 1740 to 1985 or so
> and the CO2 concentration from a model
> which excludes biota flux and CO2
> fertilization effects. The latter, lies
> considerably ABOVE the former.
This is very interesting!
> However,
> by using the function
>
> F(CO2) = 2.22 [1-exp{-0.003(pCO2-80)}]
>
> to model relative C3 plant growth rates,.
Let me see if I understand this equation. F(CO2) is the amount of CO2 (in
ppm
I assume) that is being absorbed by biota yearly. According to this model
it
approaches 2.22 ppm at very high CO2 levels. Hmm. I don't see why 2.22 ppm
is
a magic level.
> Their business as usual scenarios assuming
> that forests are maintained predicts a
> peak CO2 in about 2300 at levels of
>
> 1000 ppm assuming enhanced growth, constant decay
> 1500 ppm " enhanced growth, enhanced decay
[quote and analysis snipped]
Very interesting analysis, Josh. Thanks! Let me just comment on
the quote a bit:
>This conclusion may be premature, however, for
>two reasons: First, as mentioned earlier,
>CO2 fertilization may be less effective for
>natural ecosystems than it is in a controlled
>environment [I believe this means when there
>may be other limiting factors-jh].
By controlled environments they mean "laboratorial"
or otherwise humanly conditioned environments. This
has been compansated by socalled FACE technologies
(Free Air CO2 Enrichment) which allows regulated
experiments in a more natural environment. The
greatest problem with this (and with all other
experiments for that matter is that the studies have
not been conducted for longer periods of time. A
full understanding of CO2 fertilization requires
much longer study periods than the majority of current
studies, which are conducted over one or two seasons.
Therefore socalled natural CO2 springs provide extremely
valuable data about long term behavior in CO2 enriched
environments. One of the most illuminating studies was
performed by Fernandez, et al. ( New Phytologist 138:
689-697.) in a natural CO2 spring in Venezuela. CO2
concentrations were up to 35,000 ppm. Even at these high
levels, photosynthesis was not inhibited. The plants
experienced enhanced photosynthesis in ALL seasons
despite the presence of toxic hydrocarbons and sulfur
gases, which are not uncommon in springs like this.
Second, new studies suggest that natural ecosystems
may experience GREATER fertilization effects than socalled
"controlled environment" studies have previously suggested.
The reason is the following: many studies have concluded that
an increase in CO2 results in acclimation. THIS IS NOT CORRECT!
Increased CO2 does not in and of itself result in acclimation.
The primary cause of acclimation seems to be an imbalance in
the source/sink ratio of the plant. It turns out that many
previous studies have abruptly placed plants in a higher CO2
environment. This causes the source/sink ratio to sour and you
get nitrogen acclimation as a result. If however the CO2 level
is increased *gradually* (i.e. a few ppm per year) the plant
is able to adapt its sink size to accomodate the increased
source. Then nitrogen acclimation due to a high source/sink ratio
never occurs, and the plant experiences sustained increased
photosyntheis at high CO2 levels EVEN IF nitrogen availability is
low! Because of this many studies need to be revisited. Thus,
instead of concluding that SOME C3 plants experiencing enhanced
photosynthesis, it may be more correct to say that MOST will.
> Second,
> even if trees do grow faster in a high CO2
> environment, it is not obvious that soil
> carbon storage will increase proportionally.
What we DO know is this: trees very often experience significant root
system growth in a CO2 enhanced atmosphere. This effect alone should
result in increased soil carbon storage.
In conclusion, I think that the study underestimates the CO2
fertilization, and, from what I can tell, overestimates the business-as-
usual scenario. I'd love to see the correct figures used in this model
to get a more realistic impression of future CO2 levels.
Onar.
Steve Hemphill
> You then toss around phrases like;
> You also seem to compare
> You also threw out a number
> you claimed
> you're not sure where
> you wrote;
> Try to keep the facts straight.
> Cheers,
> Will
It's easy to keep the facts straight when you don't have any, eh Will?
Extrapolate this:
Last year average Arctic Sea Ice thickness decreased by about 15%,
despite predictions of thickness gains. (Sheba)
Check Oceanic <> Atmospheric flux.
Take CO2 emission rate.
Calculate the effect on the net CO2 flux of an increase of 3% (The
Arctic Ocean) in exposed sea water at 0 to 5 deg C. (Hint: double
digits)
Subtract this flux from the CO2 emission rate.
The resultant is negative, for a looong time.
Somebody's barking up the wrong tree.
Still waiting for the next Iceberg Armada. This solar cycle, or the
next? Are they taking bets in Vegas yet?
Gotta Run.
Steve H.
http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/hot.html
Please repeat after me:
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Biasing Invalidates
Think about it.
Joshua Halpern
> > and JCG Walker, on The Geochemical Carbon
> > Cycle and the Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2
> > I see a curve which shows the atmospheric
> > CO2 concentration from 1740 to 1985 or so
> > and the CO2 concentration from a model
> > which excludes biota flux and CO2
> > fertilization effects. The latter, lies
> > considerably ABOVE the former.
> This is very interesting!
> > However,
> > by using the function
> >
> > F(CO2) = 2.22 [1-exp{-0.003(pCO2-80)}]
> >
> > to model relative C3 plant growth rates,.
> Let me see if I understand this equation. F(CO2) is the amount of CO2 (in
> ppm
> I assume) that is being absorbed by biota yearly. According to this model
> it
> approaches 2.22 ppm at very high CO2 levels. Hmm. I don't see why 2.22 ppm
> is
> a magic level.
No, sorry if this was not clear, F is the relative growth
rate for C3 land plants, which you can fold into a model.
It is not directly the amount absorbed (You also have to
account for C4 and ocean plants). The relation is empirical
based on lab experiments.
Note that 80 ppm is an arbitrary normalization point for
CO2 fertiliztion.
josh halpern
Onar Ĺm
> > > by using the function
> > >
> > > F(CO2) = 2.22 [1-exp{-0.003(pCO2-80)}]
> > >
> > > to model relative C3 plant growth rates,.
>
> > Let me see if I understand this equation. F(CO2) is the amount of CO2
(in
> > ppm
> > I assume) that is being absorbed by biota yearly. According to this
model
> > it
> > approaches 2.22 ppm at very high CO2 levels. Hmm. I don't see why 2.22
ppm
> > is
> > a magic level.
>
> No, sorry if this was not clear, F is the relative growth
> rate for C3 land plants, which you can fold into a model.
Ok, from what I can see this implies that a CO2 concentration of 700 ppm
would result in a 40% increase in the growth rate. That seems sort of
reasonable. However, from 700 ppm to 1500 ppm the growth rate increase
is, according to this formula, only about 20%. That's not realistic.
See: www.co2science.org/fact/figures/co2growth.jpg
> It is not directly the amount absorbed (You also have to
> account for C4 and ocean plants). The relation is empirical
> based on lab experiments.
I wonder if they take nitrogen acclimation due to abrupt CO2
increases into account.
> Note that 80 ppm is an arbitrary normalization point for
> CO2 fertiliztion.
Well, it looks like the threshold of survival for plants. Few
plants survive below 80 ppm. In fact, many plants die of
deprivation at as high levels as 150 ppm. This means that
during the ice age the grim reaper was closing in on many
plant species, because the concentration in periods was as
low as 160-170 ppm!
Onar.
James G. Acker
"Onar Aam" (on...@netpower.no) wrote:
: > : http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/cald05.gif
OK, granted that I was looking more at the direct El Nino or
La Nina effects on CO2, which turned out to depend on the strength of
the equatorial upwelling. When I saw that this graph was about CO2
and temperature, and not directly related to the CO2/ocean dynamics
question, I didn't look at it closely.
So... what does this tell us? While first noting that on
the Web site you cited there is an impressive debate regarding
whether Calder's model is right or wrong, I'll take it on face value
that the correlation might be real -- i.e., in "warm" years the growth rate
of CO2 in the atmosphere will be greater than the growth rate in
"cold" years.
Let's lay out the pattern of events in a warm (El Nino) year:
January-March: Equatorial upwelling suppressed, growth rate
of CO2 in the atmosphere low. Temperature above normal.
April-July: Early parts of the period still El Nino-influenced.
As El Nino wanes, dramatic restoration of the equatorial upwelling
system, contributing to CO2 growth rate. Meanwhile, northern growing season
starts early and takes off, removing CO2 rapidly. The effects roughly
cancel each other out, so CO2 growth rate is close to the mean.
August-December: La Nina (or normal conditions) are now the
major influence. Equatorial upwelling is strong, contributing to
the CO2 growth rate. Growing season ends quickly (early fall), contributing
to the CO2 growth rate. Net effect: the CO2 growth rate in the latter
part of the year is high.
Here's the main point that I realized when I was thinking about this.
El Nino conditions will primarily suppress CO2 growth rate in the _winter_,
i.e., November-March. But that means that the effects on CO2 growth
rate will be part of two different calendar years, which reduces their
statistical influence. On the other hand, as soon as equatorial upwelling
is restored (which took place around May/June this year) all of the effects
that contribute to a high CO2 growth rate are going full-force for a
longer segment of the calendar year. Thus, the CO2 growth
rate will be seen in a "warm", El Nino year, because the primary temperature
effect of El Nino is on the coldest winter months (January and February),
which have much warmer temperatures. La Nina will make the next
year colder due to its influence on winter temperatures.
So, that's what I think. This idea attempts to explain Calder's
correlation along with the major forcing influence on CO2 uptake/release
by the oceans, which is the state of the equatorial upwelling system in the
Pacific.
Onar Ĺm
> the Web site you cited there is an impressive debate regarding
> whether Calder's model is right or wrong,
..which I participated in. I think that Calder is wrong in his basic
claim: that temperature is the basic parameter that controls CO2
levels. He is correct that temperature *has* an effect. This has been
shown many times, but the effect is much smaller than what Calder posits.
For instance, since the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements started in 1958 the
temperature increase has only elevated the CO2 level with 4-5 ppm. The
strongest evidence that human fossil fuel emissions indeed have raised
the atmospheric CO2 content is the C13 ratio.
> I'll take it on face value
> that the correlation might be real -- i.e., in "warm" years the growth
rate
> of CO2 in the atmosphere will be greater than the growth rate in
> "cold" years.
Yup. This correlation is so consistent over the years that it is
indisputable.
As far as I remember CO2 lags behind the ENSO index with 5-9 months. This
lends credit to your analysis. On the other hand, global temperature also
lags about 6 months behind the ENSO index. (That's why global temperatures
have remained high many months after El Nino ended.)
Onar.
Robert James Kunkle
+
+..which I participated in. I think that Calder is wrong in his basic
+claim: that temperature is the basic parameter that controls CO2
+levels. He is correct that temperature *has* an effect. This has been
+shown many times, but the effect is much smaller than what Calder posits.
+For instance, since the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements started in 1958 the
+temperature increase has only elevated the CO2 level with 4-5 ppm. The
+strongest evidence that human fossil fuel emissions indeed have raised
+the atmospheric CO2 content is the C13 ratio.
+
I would like to know if you believe that C13 deficiency results only from
burning of fossil fuels, or if it is recognized that another source of low
C13 might be from the release of CO2 from carbonates which could also be
enhanced by high temperatures and might be as old as coal and oil.
Jim
Steve Hemphill
>
> "Onar Aam" (on...@netpower.no) wrote:
> : > : http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/cald05.gif
> : >
> : >
> : > I took a look at this plot but it really doesn't make a lot
> : > of sense to me. Doesn't really matter, though.
> :
> :
> : Yes, it does. If it doesn't make sense to you, let me explain it. Calder
> : replicated the analysis Steve Hemphill did a year ago or so, namely to
> : calculate the correlation between the CO2 derivative and the temperature
> : derivative. The CO2 signal was phase shifted back and forth in time to
> : see if there was any correlation with previous or future years. As you can
> : see there is a staggering POSITIVE correlation between CO2 and temperature
> : in the same year. That is, if there is a major temperature boost one year,
> : CO2 is very likely to boost as well.
Here's a link to an explanation and my graph on that:
http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/climchng.html
I think it's important to remember the ocean continuously
purges CO2 where the water is warm, and takes it in where the
water is cold. CO2 molecules don't care about the interface
between water and air, they just go wherever they're bumped
to. They're a lot more sensitive to temperature when in water
though. Like water in air, the ratio of liquid to gas, at
equilibrium, doubles every ~ 20 deg C from 0 to 35 deg. From
35 deg C to 0 deg C, then, and with a constant concentration
of CO2 in the air, the water's equilibrium concentration
triples. Since the sea ice cover over the
Arctic is vanishing quickly and that water is quite cold, it
will suck up a bunch of CO2.
That may be why the Arctic Ocean's not recently been open for
long, at least it would be a factor. Many factors would
contribute to a continuation of the open surface while CO2 is
high enough. Insolation, wind forcing, and geography are a
few.
Nevertheless, if CO2 isn't kept high enough, by say,
harvesting biomass for energy production, it appears to me CO2
could drop like a rock and throw us hard into an ice age, at
which time billions of people may start burning anything that
burns to keep warm (plastics, etc.) which would really screw
up our environment.
With this being a possibility, I think it's ludicrous to whine
about increased CO2 levels when during the 700 years before
the industrial revolution the temperature was dropping at
about the same rate as at the end of the Eemian.
Steve
hester lyons
>Well, it looks like the threshold of survival for plants. Few
>plants survive below 80 ppm. In fact, many plants die of
>deprivation at as high levels as 150 ppm. This means that
>during the ice age the grim reaper was closing in on many
>plant species, because the concentration in periods was as
>low as 160-170 ppm!
>
>
>Onar.
>
>
I couldn't help it - just have to throw another interesting fact in. A
CO2 concentration of 1000 ul/l has been shown to be toxic to quite a few
plants, or so Salisbury & Ross (chapter 11) tell me. So that means we've
got a pretty small margin here, really! Another thing to remember when
getting into one's car...
--
Hester
Onar Ĺm
> burning of fossil fuels, or if it is recognized that another source of
low
> C13 might be from the release of CO2 from carbonates which could also be
> enhanced by high temperatures and might be as old as coal and oil.
I'm open to suggestions. If you have an alternative mechanism please don't
keep it to yourself.
Onar.
Will
> Here's a link to an explanation and my graph on that:
> http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/climchng.html
>
> I think it's important to remember the ocean continuously
> purges CO2 where the water is warm, and takes it in where the
> water is cold. CO2 molecules don't care about the interface
> between water and air, they just go wherever they're bumped
> to. They're a lot more sensitive to temperature when in water
> though. Like water in air, the ratio of liquid to gas, at
> equilibrium, doubles every ~ 20 deg C from 0 to 35 deg. From
> 35 deg C to 0 deg C, then, and with a constant concentration
> of CO2 in the air, the water's equilibrium concentration
> triples. Since the sea ice cover over the
> Arctic is vanishing quickly and that water is quite cold, it
> will suck up a bunch of CO2.
>
Steve, do a significant number of climatic scientists agree with you on
this point? Have you published this theory in a scientific journal?
What are your credentials?
Will
Robert James Kunkle
=> I would like to know if you believe that C13 deficiency results only from
=> burning of fossil fuels, or if it is recognized that another source of
=low
=> C13 might be from the release of CO2 from carbonates which could also be
=> enhanced by high temperatures and might be as old as coal and oil.
=
=I'm open to suggestions. If you have an alternative mechanism please don't
=keep it to yourself.
=
OK. I assume that the isotope you refer to implies the age of the source
of the carbon. Low ratios imply million-year-old sources. If this is right,
then the sources could be fossil fuels being burned (antropogenic) or the
natural weathering of carbonates in soil and exposed rock. In that case, to
make the anthropogenic contribution one needs to know the ratio of the two.
Beyond that suggestion lies the work needed from one in the field, which I am
not.
Jim
Onar Ĺm
> CO2 concentration of 1000 ul/l has been shown to be toxic to quite a few
> plants, or so Salisbury & Ross (chapter 11) tell me. So that means we've
> got a pretty small margin here, really! Another thing to remember when
> getting into one's car...
C4 plants I suspect? I've never heard of a C3 plant that experiences
intoxication
at ambient CO2 levels. (btw, what kind of postfix is ul/l ? What is that in
ppm)
After all, C3 plants evolved in CO2 levels 10-20 times greater than today.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> of the carbon. Low ratios imply million-year-old sources. If this is
right,
> then the sources could be fossil fuels being burned (antropogenic) or the
> natural weathering of carbonates in soil and exposed rock. In that case,
to
> make the anthropogenic contribution one needs to know the ratio of the
two.
> Beyond that suggestion lies the work needed from one in the field, which
I am
> not.
If we assume an annual throughput of 120 GtC in the carbon cycle and that
most of the
CO2 that upwells from the ocean is pre-industrial then you find a close
match between
the observed C13 ratio and the predicted one. It's pretty easy to
calculate. 120 GtC
corresponds to about 56.5 ppm. There is about 365 ppm in the atmosphere so
the
percentage of the atmosphere that is replaced every year is 56.5/365 =
about 15%.
This means that the time it takes to replace half the CO2 in the atmosphere
is
a little more than 4 years. (replacement time must not be confused with CO2
lifetime
which is much longer) When the ratio despite this is as low as it is then
this
can only mean that there is a major source of "ancient" CO2, of about the
same size
as our annual fossil fuel emissions.
Onar.
Steve Hemphill
Here you go Will, here's you're chance! Come up with some
BEEF. Tell me where I'm wrong. Hit me with some facts.
Steve H
Steve Hemphill
>
> Steve Hemphill wrote:
>
> > Here's a link to an explanation and my graph on that:
> > http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/climchng.html
> >
> > I think it's important to remember the ocean continuously
> > purges CO2 where the water is warm, and takes it in where the
> > water is cold. CO2 molecules don't care about the interface
> > between water and air, they just go wherever they're bumped
> > to. They're a lot more sensitive to temperature when in water
> > though. Like water in air, the ratio of liquid to gas, at
> > equilibrium, doubles every ~ 20 deg C from 0 to 35 deg. From
> > 35 deg C to 0 deg C, then, and with a constant concentration
> > of CO2 in the air, the water's equilibrium concentration
> > triples. Since the sea ice cover over the
> > Arctic is vanishing quickly and that water is quite cold, it
> > will suck up a bunch of CO2.
> >
>
> Steve, do a significant number of climatic scientists agree with you on
> this point? Have you published this theory in a scientific journal?
> What are your credentials?
is wrong?
Steve H
Harold Lindaberry
Steve Hemphill wrote:
Just to throw a possible " fly in the ointment " ( questions ) it is my
understanding that gaseous surface exchange is not simply " sucking up O2 "
and that most of the O2 is generated by plant activities ? While there may
and probably is a " fizzing effect " to use a term loosely and that probably
the "out " process is a lot easier than the " In " system ? Also in warmer
water biological activity is more rapid both in the conversion of CO2 to O2
and possible conversion of CH4 back in to the " active " bio cycle. This
could explain where where some of the old " CO2 " comes from in the
calculations ? Questions are a lot easier than answers "-)
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Onar Ĺm
> is about 'many ornamental and food crops' in greenhouses): "CO2 levels
> are usually not allowed to exceed 1000 ul/l, because such concentrations
> are frequently toxic or cause stomatal closure, sometimes even reducing
> photosynthesis".
Ah, I see. Stomatal closure is a common reaction to increased CO2 level. It
used to be considered a negative effect but is now realized to be a
positive
response, in order to improve water efficiency. A lower stomata density
also
means less water respiration losses. Also, the reduction in photosynthesis
(called acclimation) is not a direct effect of increased CO2 levels, but of
the increased source/sink ratio. The sink size is limited by availability
of
nitrogen. When increasing CO2 levels the source/sink ratio is tilted so
badly
that accute nitrogen acclimation occurs. This effect can be avoided by
*slowly*
increasing the CO2 concentration so that plant is able to adapt its sink so
that nitrogen acclimation never occurs. By doing this photosynthesis
increases
at high CO2 levels, even with low nitrogen availability.
Onar.
hester lyons
writes
that's microliter/liter. Pretty much the same as ppm. I'll quote (this
is about 'many ornamental and food crops' in greenhouses): "CO2 levels
are usually not allowed to exceed 1000 ul/l, because such concentrations
are frequently toxic or cause stomatal closure, sometimes even reducing
photosynthesis". The reference is: Hicklenton, P. R. and Jolliffe, P. A.
(1980). Alterations in the physiology of CO2 exchange in tomato plants
grown in CO2-enriched atmosphere. Can. J. Bot. 58: 2181 - 2189.
Hope this helps,
--
Hester
Steve Hemphill
>
> Steve Hemphill wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Steve Hemphill wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's a link to an explanation and my graph on that:
> > > > http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/climchng.html
> > > >
> > > > I think it's important to remember the ocean continuously
> > > > purges CO2 where the water is warm, and takes it in where the
> > > > water is cold. CO2 molecules don't care about the interface
> > > > between water and air, they just go wherever they're bumped
> > > > to. They're a lot more sensitive to temperature when in water
> > > > though. Like water in air, the ratio of liquid to gas, at
> > > > equilibrium, doubles every ~ 20 deg C from 0 to 35 deg. From
> > > > 35 deg C to 0 deg C, then, and with a constant concentration
> > > > of CO2 in the air, the water's equilibrium concentration
> > > > triples. Since the sea ice cover over the
> > > > Arctic is vanishing quickly and that water is quite cold, it
> > > > will suck up a bunch of CO2.
> > > >
>
> Just to throw a possible " fly in the ointment " ( questions ) it is my
> understanding that gaseous surface exchange is not simply " sucking up O2 "
> and that most of the O2 is generated by plant activities ?
The way I see it is this. I forget exactly who, but someone posted a
few months back the current estimates of these and other flux
quantities. I think it was in looking at these numbers that I brought
forward the concept that those quantities, in combination with the
quantities of arable land destruction and oceanic pollution, that the
real cause of increasing CO2 is not emissions but a decrease in CO2
sink. Increasing emissions are a small quantity, like about 5%, of
total CO2 to the atmosphere. I think we're way beyond 5% in
destruction of the ability of flora to accept CO2. This includes
rainforest destruction, salting of soils from improper irrigation,
toxic effects to the ocean, and synergistic herbicidal and long term
pollutants continually being added to the environment. The acres per
year are increasing as the cousins of the lemmings, homo sapiens,
continue to devour and destroy flora and its existing environments.
Adding emissions is only adding to the numerator. Reducing sink is
subtracting from the denominator. There's a big difference.
> While there may
> and probably is a " fizzing effect " to use a term loosely and that probably
> the "out " process is a lot easier than the " In " system ?
This is how I understand that. A CO2 molecule does not discriminate
between being in the water and being in the atmosphere. It just
bounces around as other molecules hit it. The change involved with
temperature is a difference in energy per unit volume as temperature
changes. Higher temperatures make the bounces harder, and since the
water is so much more dense, as temperature increases the bouncing in
the liquid's surface has a higher probability of ejecting a CO2
molecule to the atmosphere. Therefore the equilibrium concentration
goes toward more in the atmosphere as temperature increases. This is
Onar's "Warm Coke Effect". Generally speaking, water at the poles
sucks up CO2 and near the equator ejects it.
Since the ocean surface temperature varies throughout the world,
different regions are pushing for different equilibrium
concentrations. The overall average is the net equilbrium. Add a
bunch of clear water at about 0 deg C on the Arctic Ocean without sea
ice covering it, and we WILL hear a giant sucking sound (figuratively)
as the water up there adds an effort toward equilibrium at somewhere
around 100 ppm. Not much area, granted, but it's a tremendously
leveraged outlier.
> Also in warmer
> water biological activity is more rapid both in the conversion of CO2 to O2
> and possible conversion of CH4 back in to the " active " bio cycle. This
> could explain where where some of the old " CO2 " comes from in the
> calculations ?
I'd guess... Also acid rain on limestone...
> Questions are a lot easier than answers "-)
I wonder at what ppm the net flux would be heading to if we added 3%
surface ocean area at 0 deg C? What would be the change in net sink?
How does it compare with emissions? What temperature would Earth be
now were it not for the industrial revolution? Did the effect of the
industrial revolution start in about 1800, or really about 1700 when
our post interglacial temperature fall for the last 600 years
stopped? Is it even possible to stabilize Earth's temperature at this
level, or are we even now undergoing changes to latent heat storage in
the poles that make that impossible? Maybe it's warmer or colder, but
not this temperature...
Who said more efficient plant growth in different and more fertile
areas with different and increased precipitation patterns is
necessarily bad?
Steve H.
http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/hot.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's easy to tell the pseudothinkers. They're the ones most afraid of
change.
Steve Hemphill
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James G. Acker
: James G. Acker wrote:
: >
: > "Onar Aam" (on...@netpower.no) wrote:
: > : > : http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/cald05.gif
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > I took a look at this plot but it really doesn't make a lot
: > : > of sense to me. Doesn't really matter, though.
: > :
: > :
: > : Yes, it does. If it doesn't make sense to you, let me explain it. Calder
: > : replicated the analysis Steve Hemphill did a year ago or so, namely to
: > : calculate the correlation between the CO2 derivative and the temperature
: > : derivative. The CO2 signal was phase shifted back and forth in time to
: > : see if there was any correlation with previous or future years. As you can
: > : see there is a staggering POSITIVE correlation between CO2 and temperature
: > : in the same year. That is, if there is a major temperature boost one year,
: > : CO2 is very likely to boost as well.
:
: Here's a link to an explanation and my graph on that:
: http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/climchng.html
:
: I think it's important to remember the ocean continuously
: purges CO2 where the water is warm, and takes it in where the
: water is cold. CO2 molecules don't care about the interface
: between water and air, they just go wherever they're bumped
: to. They're a lot more sensitive to temperature when in water
: though. Like water in air, the ratio of liquid to gas, at
: equilibrium, doubles every ~ 20 deg C from 0 to 35 deg. From
: 35 deg C to 0 deg C, then, and with a constant concentration
: of CO2 in the air, the water's equilibrium concentration
: triples. Since the sea ice cover over the
: Arctic is vanishing quickly and that water is quite cold, it
: will suck up a bunch of CO2.
Steve, there's one very important factor that it doesn't
appear you're considering (and admittedly, it took me awhile to
realize its importance). The *main* reason that the ocean is a
CO2 source in warm regions (equatorial) is upwelling. It's also
one of the reasons that the oceans are a CO2 sink in colder regions,
because that's where deep and intermediate water forms, and that
takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the water column. However,
there are other factors at work in cold regions, such as higher
wind speeds, that increase air/sea gas exchange.
For a global picture, see
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/review/annflux.html
Temperature is a secondary effect, so unless the circulation
of a sea-ice free Arctic can be adequately modeled (and I'd say that's
a challenge) the effects are hard to predict. I would say that
because it's cold up there that deep water formation rate might
be augmented, which would remove more CO2.
: That may be why the Arctic Ocean's not recently been open for
: long, at least it would be a factor. Many factors would
: contribute to a continuation of the open surface while CO2 is
: high enough. Insolation, wind forcing, and geography are a
: few.
:
: Nevertheless, if CO2 isn't kept high enough, by say,
: harvesting biomass for energy production, it appears to me CO2
: could drop like a rock and throw us hard into an ice age, at
: which time billions of people may start burning anything that
: burns to keep warm (plastics, etc.) which would really screw
: up our environment.
I'd tend to say that the current CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere is sufficient -- would you agree?
: With this being a possibility, I think it's ludicrous to whine
: about increased CO2 levels when during the 700 years before
: the industrial revolution the temperature was dropping at
: about the same rate as at the end of the Eemian.
Jim Acker
Steve Hemphill
"James G. Acker" wrote:
>
> Steve Hemphill (shem...@ihighway.com) wrote:
<snip>
> : I think it's important to remember the ocean continuously
> : purges CO2 where the water is warm, and takes it in where the
> : water is cold. CO2 molecules don't care about the interface
> : between water and air, they just go wherever they're bumped
> : to. They're a lot more sensitive to temperature when in water
> : though. Like water in air, the ratio of liquid to gas, at
> : equilibrium, doubles every ~ 20 deg C from 0 to 35 deg. From
> : 35 deg C to 0 deg C, then, and with a constant concentration
> : of CO2 in the air, the water's equilibrium concentration
> : triples. Since the sea ice cover over the
> : Arctic is vanishing quickly and that water is quite cold, it
> : will suck up a bunch of CO2.
>
> The *main* reason that the ocean is a
> CO2 source in warm regions (equatorial) is upwelling. It's also
> one of the reasons that the oceans are a CO2 sink in colder regions,
> because that's where deep and intermediate water forms, and that
> takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the water column. However,
> there are other factors at work in cold regions, such as higher
> wind speeds, that increase air/sea gas exchange.
I agree that's part of the mechanism. It's reinforced by the
geographic "onramp" east of Greenland. Water is pulled into the
Arctic by ccw rotating polar winds, and as it cools takes more CO2,
then is pushed out and falls out to the bottom of the North Atlantic
as more is pulled in behind it. The less interference from the
relatively motionless ice, the more power is sheared into the water,
and the more the polar ccw rotation increases.
> For a global picture, see
> http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/review/annflux.html
Here's another link from there,
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/review/table1.html
I wonder how this decade's numbers compare to those?
> Temperature is a secondary effect, so unless the circulation
> of a sea-ice free Arctic can be adequately modeled (and I'd say that's
> a challenge) the effects are hard to predict. I would say that
> because it's cold up there that deep water formation rate might
> be augmented, which would remove more CO2.
The sea ice, downwelling, and CO2 sink are a form of feedback on a
long time scale, centuries or millennia long. As the Earth cools from
Milankovitch or whatever, sea ice area increases which decreases the
amount of CO2 taken into the ocean. Therefore CO2 stays higher, as
does then temperature and floral viability. The reverse is true on a
typical time scale. As temperatures go up too high more sea ice melts
allowing more CO2 into the ocean. This is a very potent negative
feedback mechanism, and can be seen in the history of the last
millennium. For the few hundred years before the industrial
revolution, temperature was falling while atm. CO2 was constant as we
departed the Holocene interglacial.
> I'd tend to say that the current CO2 concentration in
> the atmosphere is sufficient -- would you agree?
In equilibrium, yes, depending on relative insolation and other
factors. I think the equilibrium condition for this CO2 level is a
long way off though. The larger and more severe winter storms are a
result of the present disequilibrium, as they are powered by the
density difference along the jetstream, and will continue until energy
retention from insolation is again distributed equally. This means a
much warmer Arctic, which means much less sea ice, which means much
more CO2 sink, which means the extra CO2 (and more) we have could go
away in a decade, and we could go back on track to the temperature
trend of before the industrial revolution, to the temperature we'd
have been at without interruption... One or two years of that could
kill billions of people.
Maybe, just maybe, warm is good.
Gotta Run.
Steve H.
Onar Ĺm
> the atmosphere is sufficient -- would you agree?
We're not plants, but I do feel some affiliation with them. :) Therefore I
personally would love to see much higher CO2 concentrations than today,
possibly a quadrupling. This would restore the prosperity that plants
enjoyed millions earlier. Today's deserts will in a CO2 rich atmosphere
be filled with plants. I'd love to see that happen.
Onar.
Steve Hemphill
All true, I think...
The problem with that is the cesspool environment in cities along
coasts throughout the world. A quadrupling of CO2 may melt the
Antarctic ice sheet, raising sea level. This would submerge those
cities and flush all that residual pollution out to sea...
Steve H
Bill Gross
historical evidence for a wide temp. change that predates man's impact
on the planet, are we focusing on the wrong agent in this apparent
increase in global temp?
What if this is a natural cycle, and while man's industrialization may
have an impact, it may be minor in the overall temp. upward migration.
If this is true, and we expend a lot of effort remediating man's
impact. Won't we still be faced with the larger problem of an
increase in temp and the ensuing sea level changes, etc>
"Onar Åm" <on...@netpower.no> wrote:
>> I'd tend to say that the current CO2 concentration in
>> the atmosphere is sufficient -- would you agree?
>
>We're not plants, but I do feel some affiliation with them. :) Therefore I
>personally would love to see much higher CO2 concentrations than today,
>possibly a quadrupling. This would restore the prosperity that plants
>enjoyed millions earlier. Today's deserts will in a CO2 rich atmosphere
>be filled with plants. I'd love to see that happen.
>
>
>Onar.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Remove ".DELETE" from my email address to email me.
"It's not a vernacular, it's a derby!"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Onar Ĺm
> coasts throughout the world. A quadrupling of CO2 may melt the
> Antarctic ice sheet, raising sea level. This would submerge those
> cities and flush all that residual pollution out to sea...
It's COLD in the Antarctic. Even if temperatures rose 10-20 degrees there
the ice still wouldn't melt. In fact, a rise of 10 degrees over the
antarctic
continent would much more likely increase the Antarctic ice masses, due to
increase in precipitation.
Onar.
Harold Lindaberry
Steve Hemphill wrote:
while everyone else is guessing - I guess that since 2/3rds of the surface of
the earth is H2O with optimum moisture content that most of the conversion takes
place there.
> This includes
> rainforest destruction, salting of soils from improper irrigation,
> toxic effects to the ocean, and synergistic herbicidal and long term
> pollutants continually being added to the environment. The acres per
> year are increasing as the cousins of the lemmings, homo sapiens,
> continue to devour and destroy flora and its existing environments.
> Adding emissions is only adding to the numerator. Reducing sink is
> subtracting from the denominator. There's a big difference.
>
> > While there may
> > and probably is a " fizzing effect " to use a term loosely and that probably
> > the "out " process is a lot easier than the " In " system ?
>
> This is how I understand that. A CO2 molecule does not discriminate
> between being in the water and being in the atmosphere. It just
> bounces around as other molecules hit it. The change involved with
> temperature is a difference in energy per unit volume as temperature
> changes.
IMO since the surface area ( gas liquid interface ) is small compared to total
absorption capacity once it fizzes it takes a long time for the fizz to get back in
the soda ( so to speak ) no matter how cool the water gets. While we're all
guessing )
> Higher temperatures make the bounces harder, and since the
> water is so much more dense, as temperature increases the bouncing in
> the liquid's surface has a higher probability of ejecting a CO2
> molecule to the atmosphere. Therefore the equilibrium concentration
> goes toward more in the atmosphere as temperature increases. This is
> Onar's "Warm Coke Effect". Generally speaking, water at the poles
> sucks up CO2 and near the equator ejects it.
>
> Since the ocean surface temperature varies throughout the world,
> different regions are pushing for different equilibrium
> concentrations. The overall average is the net equilbrium. Add a
> bunch of clear water at about 0 deg C on the Arctic Ocean without sea
> ice covering it, and we WILL hear a giant sucking sound (figuratively)
> as the water up there adds an effort toward equilibrium at somewhere
> around 100 ppm. Not much area, granted, but it's a tremendously
> leveraged outlier
maybe maybe not
> .
>
> > Also in warmer
> > water biological activity is more rapid both in the conversion of CO2 to O2
> > and possible conversion of CH4 back in to the " active " bio cycle. This
> > could explain where where some of the old " CO2 " comes from in the
> > calculations ?
>
> I'd guess... Also acid rain on limestone...
adding lime to neutralize acid in soil is a common practice and has little if
anything to do with acid rain.
>
>
> > Questions are a lot easier than answers "-)
>
> I wonder at what ppm the net flux would be heading to if we added 3%
> surface ocean area at 0 deg C? What would be the change in net sink?
> How does it compare with emissions? What temperature would Earth be
> now were it not for the industrial revolution? Did the effect of the
> industrial revolution start in about 1800, or really about 1700 when
> our post interglacial temperature fall for the last 600 years
> stopped?
IMO if emissions were the cause then when the industrial revolution stated
isn't as much concern as the level of fuel consumption, I don't recall seeing any
figures that indicate the increased consumption has increased temperature rate
increase if in fact there is a measurable increase beyond normal background
increase.
> Is it even possible to stabilize Earth's temperature at this
> level, or are we even now undergoing changes to latent heat storage in
> the poles that make that impossible? Maybe it's warmer or colder, but
> not this temperature...
>
> Who said more efficient plant growth in different and more fertile
> areas with different and increased precipitation patterns is
> necessarily bad?
I agree
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
jga...@my-dejanews.com
proxy.airnews.net>,
bgr...@airmail.DELETE.net (Bill Gross) wrote:
> I was wondering, after reading Balling's work where he points out
> historical evidence for a wide temp. change that predates man's impact
> on the planet, are we focusing on the wrong agent in this apparent
> increase in global temp?
>
> What if this is a natural cycle, and while man's industrialization may
> have an impact, it may be minor in the overall temp. upward migration.
> If this is true, and we expend a lot of effort remediating man's
> impact. Won't we still be faced with the larger problem of an
> increase in temp and the ensuing sea level changes, etc>
>
Because in reality this is a political argument rather than a scientific one.
This has much more to do with sociological/political agendas that have
hijacked science to justify political change. Remember, scratch a green and
find red underneath. Why do you think that every "International Summit on
<insert ecological nightmare here>" starts with the premise that industry
(i.e. capitalism) must be curtailed in order to prevent environmental
collapse? Not one summit I know of has ever proposed a technological
solution to a problem. The only solutions offered involve "world monitoring
agencies", "redistribution of technologies to the third world" and
"curtailing of technological advances in defense of the Earth". No talk
about using cloth bags at the supermarket or taking the bus to work from
these summits, just environmental socialism, EVERY TIME!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
James G. Acker
: "James G. Acker" wrote:
: > The *main* reason that the ocean is a
Short comment:
A process which may be balanced by increased dustiness during
cold periods, which puts more iron in the oceans, enhancing phytoplankton
growth and removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Ain't GAIA great?
: does then temperature and floral viability. The reverse is true on a
: typical time scale. As temperatures go up too high more sea ice melts
: allowing more CO2 into the ocean. This is a very potent negative
: feedback mechanism, and can be seen in the history of the last
: millennium. For the few hundred years before the industrial
: revolution, temperature was falling while atm. CO2 was constant as we
: departed the Holocene interglacial.
:
: > I'd tend to say that the current CO2 concentration in
: > the atmosphere is sufficient -- would you agree?
:
: In equilibrium, yes, depending on relative insolation and other
: factors. I think the equilibrium condition for this CO2 level is a
: long way off though. The larger and more severe winter storms are a
: result of the present disequilibrium, as they are powered by the
: density difference along the jetstream, and will continue until energy
: retention from insolation is again distributed equally. This means a
: much warmer Arctic, which means much less sea ice, which means much
: more CO2 sink, which means the extra CO2 (and more) we have could go
: away in a decade, and we could go back on track to the temperature
: trend of before the industrial revolution, to the temperature we'd
: have been at without interruption... One or two years of that could
: kill billions of people.
The one thing I disagree with is the rate of CO2 *decrease*,
even if the sea ice area in the Arctic is drastically reduced. Like
I said, modeling the effects on the atmosphere under such an unusual
condition is likely to be a challenge. However, if the rate of CO2
decrease is such that it would go down to a chilling level in a decade,
the _direct_ effects of such a change in the ocean circulation regime
are likely to be pretty drastic, too. So it sounds like you're saying
that increasing CO2 --> more warmth --> loss of Arctic sea ice area
--> real BAD. If this is a summary of something I should have grasped
a couple of months ago, I apologize. If that's what you're proposing,
I agree, that would be bad. The big question in my mind then would
be how rapidly sea ice area is currently changing, and if so, what processes
might stabilize the current loss.
: Maybe, just maybe, warm is good.
That depends on how warm -- or how cold.
Steve Hemphill
However, a quadrupling of CO2 would raise temperatures much more than
10 or 20 degrees. Granted, it's not something we have to worry about
with our piddly little increases, especially since the ocean presently
holds 50 times as much CO2 (as temperature goes up, however, that will
decrease).
What really gets me is this misconception that CO2 is pollution.
Steve
Steve Hemphill
"Onar Ĺm" wrote:
>
> > However, a quadrupling of CO2 would raise temperatures much more than
> > 10 or 20 degrees. Granted, it's not something we have to worry about
> > with our piddly little increases, especially since the ocean presently
> > holds 50 times as much CO2 (as temperature goes up, however, that will
> > decrease).
>
> I was talking about celcius, not fahrenheit. There's no way that a
> quadrupling would lead to a warming of 10-20 degrees in the antarctic.
> Look at present temperatures: a 30% increase in CO2 has probably
> raised temperatures less than 0.3 C globally and the antarctic or
> arctic regions have not experienced any significantly greater warming
> than the rest of the globe. I know extrapolation is a bad thing, but
> let's do it anyway.
<snip>
You can't extrapolate part of a system with unknown and
variable feedbacks. You can apply "biases" but that
automatically makes the answers wrong, because a bias by
definition is a skewing without signal. How effective is the
salinity control of the Arctic sea ice now compared to 50
years ago? I don't have my hands on the actual data yet, but
I understand the average ice thickness this year decreased by
about 15% (Sheba) from last year, and projections were for it
to grow.
Besides, it takes a long time (decades, at least) for the
temperature of the ocean to come to equilibrium with the tiny
addition of the change in heat retention. Even if CO2 were
stabilized right now Earth would continue to heat for decades
or more.
Steve H
Steve Hemphill
"James G. Acker" wrote:
>
> The one thing I disagree with is the rate of CO2 *decrease*,
> even if the sea ice area in the Arctic is drastically reduced. Like
> I said, modeling the effects on the atmosphere under such an unusual
> condition is likely to be a challenge.
To say the least.
> However, if the rate of CO2
> decrease is such that it would go down to a chilling level in a decade,
> the _direct_ effects of such a change in the ocean circulation regime
> are likely to be pretty drastic, too. So it sounds like you're saying
> that increasing CO2 --> more warmth --> loss of Arctic sea ice area
> --> real BAD.
An overshoot.
> The big question in my mind then would
> be how rapidly sea ice area is currently changing, and if so, what processes
> might stabilize the current loss.
>
> : Maybe, just maybe, warm is good.
>
> That depends on how warm -- or how cold.
They're relative and tolerable over a great range. What
matters is what food and how much of it we can grow, while we
try to hammer sustainability into the forefront of our
collective conscience. Artificially removing CO2 permanently
(re: biologic life) is cutting our own throats.
Steve H
Onar Ĺm
> 10 or 20 degrees. Granted, it's not something we have to worry about
> with our piddly little increases, especially since the ocean presently
> holds 50 times as much CO2 (as temperature goes up, however, that will
> decrease).
I was talking about celcius, not fahrenheit. There's no way that a
quadrupling would lead to a warming of 10-20 degrees in the antarctic.
Look at present temperatures: a 30% increase in CO2 has probably
raised temperatures less than 0.3 C globally and the antarctic or
arctic regions have not experienced any significantly greater warming
than the rest of the globe. I know extrapolation is a bad thing, but
let's do it anyway. Let's for a second pretend that the 30% increase
in CO2 "really" caused 1.5 C warming but was masked by mysterious
forces. Then a quadrupling should yield a warming of 1.5*log(4)/log(1.5) =
8 C. Thus, even in wild scenarios like this the antarctic ice will still
not melt.
> What really gets me is this misconception that CO2 is pollution.
CO2 is obviously not a pollutant. It has no smell, color or taste,
it's not toxic or allergically reactant. Hence, it's not a
pollutant.
Onar.
Onar Ĺm
> variable feedbacks.
I know, that's why I said extrapolation was a bad thing. Nevertheless,
the temperature levels you suggest would be unprecedented in the
history of the earth. Temperatures have known to vary wildly in ice
ages (or generally when it is cold) but interglacial periods tend to
be far more stable. The kind of unstability you suggest is therefore
unlikely to occur, even with a melting arctic.
Onar.
Harold Lindaberry
Onar Åm wrote:
> > You can't extrapolate part of a system with unknown and
> > variable feedbacks.
Extrapolation with good complete data is " iffy " at best - with
incomplete data and understanding is futility.
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
Will Stewart
Bill Gross wrote:
> I was wondering, after reading Balling's work where he points out
> historical evidence for a wide temp. change that predates man's impact
> on the planet, are we focusing on the wrong agent in this apparent
> increase in global temp?
>
> What if this is a natural cycle, and while man's industrialization may
> have an impact, it may be minor in the overall temp. upward migration.
First, one would have to present evidence that this truly is a natural cycle,
not a forcing brought on by anthropogenic factors. If you had seen the recent
news on the subject, natural forces are estimated to play a 1/6th role in the
current climate change. So your "What if" is OBE.
Will Stewart
Will Stewart
jga...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > What if this is a natural cycle, and while man's industrialization may
> > have an impact, it may be minor in the overall temp. upward migration.
> > If this is true, and we expend a lot of effort remediating man's
> > impact. Won't we still be faced with the larger problem of an
> > increase in temp and the ensuing sea level changes, etc>
> >
>
> Because in reality this is a political argument rather than a scientific one.
No, the effects from global warming (natural or forced) are real, not some
abstract political agenda. You seem to have missed the point.
>
> This has much more to do with sociological/political agendas that have
> hijacked science to justify political change. Remember, scratch a green and
> find red underneath.
Oh, and scratch a conservative and find a Nazi? These are silly word games that
belong in talk.politics.nahnah...
> Why do you think that every "International Summit on
> <insert ecological nightmare here>" starts with the premise that industry
> (i.e. capitalism) must be curtailed in order to prevent environmental
> collapse? Not one summit I know of has ever proposed a technological
> solution to a problem.
Have you bothered to read any of the reports? If so, tell us which ones...
Will Stewart
Harold Lindaberry
Will Stewart wrote:
> Bill Gross wrote:
>
> > I was wondering, after reading Balling's work where he points out
> > historical evidence for a wide temp. change that predates man's impact
> > on the planet, are we focusing on the wrong agent in this apparent
> > increase in global temp?
> >
> > What if this is a natural cycle, and while man's industrialization may
> > have an impact, it may be minor in the overall temp. upward migration.
>
> First, one would have to present evidence that this truly is a natural cycle,
> not a forcing brought on by anthropogenic factors.
or visa versa
> If you had seen the recent
> news on the subject, natural forces are estimated to play a 1/6th role in the
> current climate change.
Data ?
“ Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope “ Lindaberry 1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
> So your "What if" is OBE.
>
> Will Stewart
Steve Hemphill
"Onar Åm" wrote:
>
> > You can't extrapolate part of a system with unknown and
> > variable feedbacks.
>
> I know, that's why I said extrapolation was a bad thing. Nevertheless,
> the temperature levels you suggest would be unprecedented in the
> history of the earth. Temperatures have known to vary wildly in ice
> ages (or generally when it is cold) but interglacial periods tend to
> be far more stable. The kind of unstability you suggest is therefore
> unlikely to occur, even with a melting arctic.
Huh?
I think either I mistyped or you misread. While it's been dozens of
millions of years since Antarctica was ice free, it's by no means
unprecedented. What I said was that if somehow enough CO2 was dumped
into the atmosphere to quadruple concentration, the ocean would suck
up the vast majority of it. If, however, you're talking about
equilibrium at a quadrupling, I believe Antarctica would be ice free.
Steve H
Onar Ĺm
Steve Hemphill <hemp...@rt66.com> wrote in article
<3665304F...@rt66.com>...
And that is what I disagreed with. It's bloody cold in Antarctica and
even a sustained quadrupling of CO2 concentration is not going to change
that. Antarctica has been covered with ice during periods when there
was 10-20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than now. So clearly CO2 is in
itself no indicator of whether there is ice in antarctica or not.
Onar.
jga...@my-dejanews.com
Will Stewart <v_st...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> jga...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> > Why do you think that every "International Summit on
> > <insert ecological nightmare here>" starts with the premise that industry
> > (i.e. capitalism) must be curtailed in order to prevent environmental
> > collapse? Not one summit I know of has ever proposed a technological
> > solution to a problem.
>
> Have you bothered to read any of the reports? If so, tell us which ones...
>
> Will Stewart
>
Reports on what? Reports on the summits? Have you read them? Name one
"solution" offered by Brazil, Kyoto or other summits that offered anything
but what amounts to social engineering as a "solution" to these problems. I
am not arguing with you about the data (I feel the jury is out on this, so
why argue until they come back in). I am simply asking if the Earth is in
danger of <insert calamity here> why must <insert socialist agenda here> be
the only solution? My questions, if you read them, are not about the data
discussed at these summits, but the solutions offered, in case you haven't
noticed.
Phil Hays
> And that is what I disagreed with. It's bloody cold in Antarctica and
> even a sustained quadrupling of CO2 concentration is not going to change
> that. Antarctica has been covered with ice during periods when there
> was 10-20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than now.
Antarctica has been partially ice-covered for about 10 to 14 million
years. During this time, CO2 levels have been between roughly half
current levels to roughly twice current levels. Prior to this time, CO2
levels were roughly 4 to 16 times current levels, and both poles were
mostly ice free. For a discussion of the geologic record of the long
term relationship between CO2 and climate, a place to start is:
Science, Vol 259, 12-Feb-1993, pages 905-941.
--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
we can do, even in principle." Carl Sagan