THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bob_FJ,
Re your point about hydrogen powered aeroplanes, I’d just direct you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_planes
As you can see Boeing and Airbus have done initial research. The Soviet Union flew a hydrogen powered Tu154 in 1988.
They aren’t the highest priority. Indeed they may never be necessary as I went on to say, but it is interesting to speculate on what might be possible.
What is a priority is the phasing out of coal and oil powered electricity generation. Oil and coal can still be used in some applications, powering ships and aircraft maybe, but at a much slower rate. This means they last longer of course.
Unlike carbon dioxide, which hangs around in the atmosphere for a hundred or so years, water vapour emissions quickly condense and have little or no effect on IR radiation.
You’ve stumped me on the Santa question. But it seems a lack of Christmas snow in Australia doesn’t present him with too much of a problem :-)
Peter #3446
There’s not a lot in your post I’d disagree with as far as the aspirations go, but real life has a habit of getting in the way.
We in the UK are being asked to increasingly rely on wind and solar but they have two major problems -their output varies wildly according to the whims of the weather-sort of pot luck power.
As an example, my solar powered lights stop working in about mid October due to lack of rays and start again around March. So they are inactive at just exactly the time they are most needed. Similarly wind power (in what is the windiest country in Europe) would be better described as ‘whim’ power as the wind blows when it wants, and it tends to be at its quietest during anti cyclones, which we get a lot of in winter when the temperatures drop rapidly and the turbines stop working. So again they are not there when they are most needed.
Which is not to say they are not useful as a marginal ‘top up’ source but they are no use as the main base power source. It might be different in Australia and both wind and solar sources will deliver what you want when you want it.
AS I have said before, I favour water power in our country-they made good use of it in medieval times here (when they weren’t sitting down in the shade as it was too hot to work) I can hear the waves crashing down on the beach as I type this and thats an awful lot of energy going to waste as the tides are as regular as clockwork and are topped up with wave power.
The other shortfall we have of course is in storing power in times of plenty for use in times of energy famine.
I don’t know whether storage is going to improve or whether DC power has a more general use outside of vehicles. It would be great to be able to generate your own power and store it until needed in batteries.
Coal is my preferred option in the UK-we have lots of it- and I am far more scared of the Russians switching off our gas (which generates much of our electric) than the extremely remote possibility that our tiny usage (we have contributed half a molecule of greenhouse gases per million since 1750) will cause the earth to melt. New coal power stations can also be built quickly-absolutely essential if we are not to suffer catastrophic power shortages within five years. Obviously suitable modern emissions controls are needed and we could look at liquefaction into gas.
Nuclear power I would personally welcome but it has been very much a left wing thing in this country to vehemently oppose it, so you have an unusually enlightened view. So what with the left wing environmentalists opposing coal and nuclear we are left with the promotion of expensive part time renewables that will only work when it suits the weather gods.
Thats no way to manage a modern economy but it is the way to destroy it.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
In a post to Brute you put your thoughts on energy conservation, CO2 reduction, etc. on paper. You’ve obviously thought these questions through very thoroughly and much of what you have written makes sense to me as well, as a rational skeptic of what I consider to be the current irrational over-concern over AGW.
Your thought: “It is more a question of what everyone’s goal should be rather than mine alone. But, what I would argue for are policies designed to stabilise CO2 atmospheric concentrations and ultimately lead to their reduction.”
My thought: “Stabilizing CO2 atmospheric concentrations” appears at this time to be a futile exercise, which will achieve no real impact on our planet’s climate, possibly at great cost to humanity (in particular the poorest sector of humanity). So I would not necessarily “argue for policies designed to stabilise CO2 atmospheric concentrations and ultimately lead to their reduction”, but rather to address the impending problems related to dwindling resources of fossil fuels.
Your thought: “I posted these thoughts on the NS blog some time ago.
Reduction of atmospheric CO2 need not involve an abandonment of industry. Renewable sources of energy need to be utilised to the full. Solar, Geothermal, Wind. However, I can’t see that they are going to be enough, so we should aim to replace oil and coal fired stations by nuclear energy for electricity generation. There is enough Uranium 235 to keep us going for at least the next 100 years.”
My thought: I agree that we should not consider “an abandonment of industry” (and our current standard of living, which is a direct result of our industrialization). We should, instead, take the most economically viable (and environmentally attractive) path. There will be isolated cases where solar and wind energy meets these criteria, but these will be exceptions. Clean coal (i.e. coal with no emission of true pollutants – not CO2), as well as nuclear energy should keep us going for a lot longer than “the next 100 years”, since there is enough coal as well as uranium to last several hundred years, according to experts. Oil shale deposits in the USA and elsewhere can provide as much oil (for motor transportation) as there is in the entire Middle East.
Your thought: [This could be] “more if fast breeder reactors are used. After that we can expect nuclear fusion to take over. There is enough Deuterium and Tritium in the sea to keep us going for ever if we can work out how to build fusion reactors.”
Agree 100%.
Your thought: “People are scared of nuclear energy. But many countries have operated it safely for many years. No source of energy is risk free. We just have to make it as safe as it can be. Which is pretty good even when you include the Chernobyl disaster. That shouldn’t happen again with newer and better designed reactors.”
Agree 100%. Chernobyl was a monumental screw-up of an antiquated Soviet-built plant with no containment and inadequate safety measures. France generates 80% of its electrical power from properly designed nuclear plants with no problems at all.
Your thought: “The worlds forests and oceans need to be managed scientifically to keep them and their ecosystems in good health. Forests can still be used as a source of timber, its when the timber is burned that CO2 is emitted. So, we should look at using timber as a replacement, wherever possible, for concrete and other building materials.”
Agree to the first part, but this is already being done to a large extent. An international treaty banning large-scale deforestation in the Amazon and Congo rain forests should be signed but I do not believe that any other large-scale government interventions are required other than those already in place.
Your thought: “Oil is not so readily replaced for transportation.”
Agree. It will gradually be replaced naturally when it becomes too expensive and when other alternates become more attractive, without “Big Brother” getting involved. Oil shale deposits will extend this by possibly 100 years, but not indefinitely.
Your thought: “If we can develop good enough batteries, electric cars are a solution.”
Agree, at least for inner-city use, but your “if” is still a mighty big “if”, but I am confident that it will happen.
Your thought: “If not, liquid hydrogen is the obvious alternative for cars and trucks.”
My thought on this: I have read the economic studies on this. They are dicey. Liquid hydrogen is a very dangerous material. (I have worked with it in the past and speak from experience.) Whether or not it will ever be able to safely use this very reactive and diffusive material as a general motor fuel is highly doubtful. In addition, the costs will be staggering. The studies show that this would only be a viable solution if CO2 reduction is a primary goal, no matter what the cost, and even then it is questionable due to the inherent safety hazard.
Your thought: “Other solutions are being promoted these days, e.g. compressed gaseous hydrogen, but I don’t see anything but liquid hydrogen that will both avoid the emission of CO2 and give the range of petrol/gasoline/diesel powered engines. I’m more confident that batteries will be viable for cars in the near future.”
My thought: Batteries, yes (see above). If we move away from our obsession with CO2 emissions and concentrate on energy solutions for the future, we will find the right answers. Liquid motor fuels from coal (SASOL South Africa) could be one solution, as could the use of natural gas as a motor fuel.
Your thought: “Hydrogen seems rather bulky for aeroplanes, although some think that the advantage of having less weight for given energy will outweigh the disadvantage of having more bulk per unit energy. Most likely, we can continue to use oil, for the indefinite future. If aeroplanes become the only major source of putting CO2 in the atmosphere, then the earth can cope with that.”
My thought: Hydrogen as an aviation fuel could only become attractive when we have run out of petroleum and coal (for generating liquid fuels), and even then the safety hazard would be prohibitive.
Your thought: “Its all going to require some money. I would suggest by diverting some of the trillions of dollars spent on military technologies towards the development of these newer technologies. No jobs need be lost – the guys we need to develop nuclear fusion etc are, by and large, currently working on ‘defence’ based work. They need to do something a bit more useful.”
My thought on this: Peter, you undoubtedly mean well, but this is a utopian thought. Military technologies will continue to be developed until all of mankind can learn to live in peace and harmony together. This has never been the case in the past and there is no evidence that it is the case today. The resurgence of militant fundamentalist ideologies and terrorist organizations tells me that it will not happen for a long while yet, as nice as it would be.
Peter, you have done an excellent job of putting your thoughts on all this into words, and while I (or Brute – and apparently others) may not agree with everything you have written, a lot of it makes sense in my opinion.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
As Tony stated above there doesn’t seem to be any (acceptable to environmentalists) energy alternatives to create your Utopian Paradise except for all of us riding bicycles and freezing in the darkness. The sad irony is that foolish people have bought into this non-existent planetary emergency, done what they were directed to do, (purchased unsafe battery powered cars), which they are now being penalized for. They were sold a false premise, adhered to it and now the politicians have pulled the old switcheroo and raised taxes on both the enlightened, pious, Earth worshipers as well as the greedy, overfed, barbaric, knuckle-draggers.
The astonishing thing is that you are willing to entrust the future of the state of the planet to politicians and government……… The same politicians that have done such a wonderful job of managing our affairs “for our own good” to date.
Sorry Tony for taking up your webspace. My friend Ed was helping me figure out how to add images………….
Test
Test Image
Max,
Yes I agree with you that your proposed path for future development would make sense, if a doubling, or even a redoubling, of atmospheric CO2 levels was thought to be safe enough for the climate.
However, as you know full well, it is considered to be far from safe by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. You’d have to be pretty arrogant or foolish, or both, to pretend to know any differently on the basis of what you’ve read on some website funded by Exxon Mobil or the coal industry.
As I have tried to explain, an acceptance of the best scientific advice and evidence doesn’t mean an abandonment of industry or a return to a medieval lifestyle. It just means that clean ‘low CO2’ technology has to be used. This already exists but is not at the same developmental level as existing ‘dirty’ technology. The problem to its development is largely due to the cheapness of fossil fuels whose price does not reflect the costs to future generations of their CO2 emissions.
It is easy to dismiss any proposal for improvement as ‘Utopian’. Calls for abolition of slavery, free education for children, would have been called Utopian initially. Slavery has largely been abolished, although not completely, and children are educated in the wealthier countries of the world. Utopia? Not quite yet.
Sooner or later CO2 emissions will be factored into the economic system. We’ll have electric cars and nuclear power but not Utopia.
Pete,
Just dissecting the Peter Martin plan for future return to the Garden of Eden…..Are you suggesting that we use timber as a replacement for concrete and steel? Does that really seem feasible to you?
Timber hydroelectric dams? Do you have any idea how much concrete is required to anchor a wind turbine?
Brute 3458
Brilliant!
Peter
I try not to look at short term trends but was looking wistfully back at my weather records when I see that this time in 2007 my home town was consistently the warmest in the UK hovering at between 13C-15C all this week! Currently it is around 1C to 3C and has been for some weeks.
We had some wind a week or so ago, so If I were able to store that and top up the equivalent of all the batteries in a modern electric car, can anyone work out how many hours of heat it would have given me in a 1000sq ft house? I’m not denigrating renewables (I subscribe to 10 renewables E-magazines) but just asking a serious question as to the current (pun intended) state of the art if we want to use battery technology for anything other than vehicles.
Also does not using nuclear power leave a legacy to our children that some would argue is proven to be much worse than the still theoretical affects of CO2? That has been a large part of the arguements used by our environmentalist left wingers for the last 30 years. Some of the members of the current Govt went on anti nuclear power marches and are still anti.
tonyB
I know this is silly but it sums up very well the nature of some of the dire effects AGW is apparently having on our planet
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
TonyB
Pete, Reur 3451, I’m stunned, you actually responded to my 3449/23, pretty well on-topic!
I was very surprised to learn that the Russians have flown a hydrogen powered aircraft back in 1988, for two reasons:
A) WHY!? And, B) What did it look like?
Well as to A), it was part of consideration in State energy planning between the conventional fuels and any alternative fuels…. (Not your preferred reason of limiting CO2 emissions) To demonstrate, I will quote from a source below:
LNG also has a goodly higher boiling point of -162C compared with -253C, with improved safety, and weight and cost saving implications
As to B), (what was it?), here is a picture, showing the major components required to power just one of the three engines for only up to 1.5 hours:
Extracted from the same article, some more text:
Here is additional information on some of the complexities such as running wiring and tubes externally to the aircraft skin
I can’t think why the Russians have not taken this much further after two decades.
I have additional comments on Boeing and the EU project etc when I have time.
Hi Peter,
In your 3462 you waxed poetic and eloquent in discussing “improvement” and “utopia” in several sectors. But let’s concentrate on the AGW related issues.
You wrote: “A doubling, or even a redoubling, of atmospheric CO2 levels”… ”is considered to be far from safe by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. You’d have to be pretty arrogant or foolish, or both, to pretend to know any differently on the basis of what you’ve read on some website funded by Exxon Mobil or the coal industry.”
Peter, I do not subscribe to your statement that “a doubling, or even a redoubling, of atmospheric CO2 levels”…”is considered to be far from safe by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.”
First of all, your “overwhelming majority of the scientific community” claim is unsubstantiated. You must certainly be aware that there are a lot of scientists out there who do not agree with this statement.
Optimistically estimated, there are enough fossil fuel reserves on this planet to reach an atmospheric CO2 level of around 1100 ppmv, roughly 3x the current level of 385 ppmv. That’s it, Peter. Ain’t no mo’.
Lindzen has shown us that a fourfold increase in CO2 would result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of 1.29°C (please refer to post 3158).
This checks fairly closely with the IPCC estimates for radiative forcing from CO2 (Myhre et al.) as stated in SPM 2007 (p.4).
It also checks closely with the observed long-term warming from 1850 to 2008 of 0.3°C, after subtracting the 0.35°C warming from increased solar activity from the observed total warming of 0.65°C over this period (as pointed out previously).
If we adjust Lindzen’s 4xCO2 warming estimate to the absolute maximum possible as limited by total fossil fuel availability of 3xCO2:
= 1.29 * (ln 3 / ln 4) = 1.02°C
This tells us that the absolute maximum warming we could theoretically expect from tripling today’s CO2 levels by burning up all the fossil fuels that exist on our planet is around 1°C.
I do not need an imaginary “overwhelming majority of the scientific community” (funded by whom?) to tell me that this is nothing to worry about.
I do not need to be either “arrogant or foolish” to deduce this for myself.
I also do not need to rely on what I’ve “read on some website funded by Exxon Mobil or the coal industry” to figure this out.
It’s just plain common sense and the greenhouse hypothesis as it is postulated by IPCC, confirmed by physical observations.
You have still not taken on the challenge of defending the strong positive feedback assumptions (primarily from water vapor and clouds) without which there is no AGW problem, except to say, “well that’s what all those scientists say, so it must be right” (I’m paraphrasing here).
You referred to “acceptance of the best scientific advice and evidence”.
Show me, Peter, if you can, the “evidence” that a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of more than 0.7°C as a result of strong positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds is validated by actual physical observations and not just by computer model assumptions.
I am still awaiting your response on this topic.
Regards,
Max
Max,
It is just not the case that all estimates of climate sensitivity rely on computer models. For example:
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347139a0.html
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/jmgregory0201.pdf
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Hi Peter,
In “defending” your belief in strong “positive feedbacks” you cite (3468):
Empirical calculation by Hansen based on last 20,000 years
Calculation by Lorius based on Vostok ice core data examination
Hoffert paleoclimate reconstruction
Calculation based on Gregory observations of ocean heat uptake
Statistical analysis by Tung on 20th century response to solar cycle
Give me a break, Peter.
This is all very nice mumbo-jumbo.
Why go back thousands of years to search for “evidence” for something that is supposed to be impacting our climate today? Why take the oversimplified approach of looking at the difference in TSI over an 11-year solar cycle, ignoring all other factors, and then statistically divining a “feedback”.
I do not see any real evidence of “feedbacks” in the actual temperature record from 1850 to today, once the solar impact (as estimated by several studies by solar scientists previously cited) is removed from the total warming.
I do not see studies physically measuring the cloud or water vapor response to increased surface temperatures, which would confirm these positive feedbacks.
This is “evidence”. Not some proxy studies or ice core reconstructions or empirical calculation of 20,000-year old trends.
We have gone through this previously on this site, but it appears that you still religiously cling to the out-dated notion espoused by IPCC in early 2007 (almost two years ago) that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in a global warming of 3.2°C, due to the many assumed predominantly positive (i.e. warming) feedbacks, which you attempt to defend with a bunch of hypothetical studies and empirical calculations.
In its AR4 report Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
Based on these model-derived feedback forcings, IPCC calculates that the 2xCO2 feedback temperature response would be:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+1.5°C [Water Vapor]
-0.8°C [Lapse Rate]
+0.7°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.5°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.9°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
+1.3°C [Clouds]
+3.2°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633)
Latest “scientific” data (which I will explain in more detail below) enable us to update and correct the IPCC assumptions, as follows:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+0.4°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.2°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631, corrected for Minschwaner and Dessler study)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.6°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
-1.0°C [Clouds] (corrected for Spencer et al. plus Norris observations)
+0.6°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633, corrected for both clouds and water vapor)
As you can see, the correction for the exaggerated water vapor feedback assumption is much smaller (0.3°C) than that for the incorrectly assumed net feedback from clouds (2.3°C).
But let’s discuss them both anyway.
The constant relative humidity model is a cornerstone of the IPCC water vapor feedback assumption, which leads to a significant increase in the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
As physical observations have shown, this assumption is false. Relative humidity does not, in actual fact, remain constant, as assumed by the IPCC models, but decreases with higher temperature.
The M-D model results conclude that the increase in water vapor will be around 40% of the values assumed in the IPCC GCMs. It estimates a climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 including water vapor feedback (but excluding clouds and the surface albedo feedback) of 1.2°C. (See previous post #1925 for links.)
The physical observations of M+D actually showed an even lower net increase in water vapor with warming than their model, so that the observed feedback from water vapor is probably closer to 0.8°C (rather than 1.2°C).
This was pointed out previously (#2147) with a link to the chart from the M+D study. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2958955575_2c69450bd9_b.jpg
In the above chart, the shaded area is the linear least square fit of actually observed data with uncertainty (95% confidence limit), the dashed line shows the M+D model result and the dotted line shows the constant relative humidity assumption used in the IPCC models. Change in specific humidity per °C is 1.8-4.2 (actually observed), 8.5 (M+D model) and 20 (IPCC constant RH assumption); i.e. IPCC assumes 5 to 11 times the amount of increase in atmospheric water vapor as actually observed and around 2.5 times the amount calculated by the M+D model.
Why M+D “watered down” (no pun intended) their findings of exaggerated water vapor feedback in the IPCC models (from a net exaggeration in the expected 2xCO2 warming from the actually observed 0.7°C to only 0.3°C) is anyone’s guess.
But, be that as it may, the largest error in IPCC AR4 is its acceptance of the climate model assumption of a strongly positive net feedback from clouds (resulting in 40% of the total assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C!). To their credit IPCC does concede in the AR4 report, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
Fortunately, new data have arrived after AR4, which have helped to clear up this ”largest source of uncertainty” on the part of IPCC. Spencer et al. report that physical observations confirm that clouds do not exert a strongly positive (warming) net feedback with increased warming of +0.69 W/m^2°K (as assumed by IPCC); instead a strongly negative (cooling) net feedback of -0.8 W/m^2°K was observed.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Another independent long-term study by Joel Norris on cloud feedback confirms the Spencer conclusion of a strong negative feedback from clouds.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf
Here the annual mean cloud cover based on observations since 1952 of different types of clouds at low, middle and high altitude was compared with ERBE radiation anomaly. The study showed that low-level stratiform cloud cover and reflected SW radiation have increased over midlatitude oceans as well as over eastern subtropical oceans over the study time period.
As in the Spencer study, a strong negative feedback of -0.8 W/m^2°K was observed, with a potential impact on temperature DT = -1.5K.
The findings of these studies are indeed good news, since they confirm that the Hansen fear is basically unfounded that “positive feedbacks predominate” in our climate system, and that his alarming prediction “that the Earth is close to dangerous climate changes, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects” is not at all supported by the physically observed facts.
IPCC and the entire “mainstream scientific community” that is deeply concerned about AGW should greet these good news enthusiastically with a big “hurrah!”. No longer do we have to worry about major warming of 3.2°C from a potential doubling of atmospheric CO2 by year 2100, now that IPCC’s “largest source of uncertainty” (cloud feedbacks) have been cleared up. Instead we can be glad that the latest physical observations confirm that this will only result in a rather insignificant theoretical warming of around 0.6 to 0.7°C instead (of which we have already enjoyed 0.3°C to date, leaving a relatively insignificant 0.3 to 0.4°C from today until year 2100).
Incidentally, as we concluded earlier, the warming we have experienced over the past 150+ years (0.65°C according to Hadley) can be explained by natural factors (increased solar activity = 0.35°C) plus the IPCC’s estimate of total net anthropogenic forcing (excluding any feedbacks = 0.3°C). So the recently observed physical evidence does not support the notion that there has been any warming in the past from these theoretical feedbacks.
The computer-assumed “positive feedbacks” just aren’t there to be seen in the “real world”.
To summarize: the observed facts confirm that you can bury the model-created “3.2C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2”, and with it the case for alarming warming from AGW.
But yet there are those (are you one of them, Peter?) that go around with a sour face, religiously clinging to the flawed and since outdated IPCC report with its 3.2°C climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, like an evangelical preacher, clinging to the “holy gospel”, warning us that “the end is near” and predicting certain “hell-fire and damnation” unless we repent and change our sinful ways.
Amen, brother! (But count me out. This is religious faith, not science and common sense.)
Regards,
Max
Max
Since you seem to be in a scientific calculation frame of mind today (too cold to go and dig the garden?) you can perhaps do a calculation for me.
Mauna Loa sits on a volcanic island in the middle of a constantly warm sea-arguably there is underwater volcanic action as well as that happening above ground. Consequently there is presumably perpetual outgassing of co2 from this location.
Now the English channel is one of those bodies of water-like many away from the equatoprial region- that is perpetually cool, 17C or so is around the maxiumum in summer, around 8C on Boxing day when all the mad people went for a charity swim. Now presumably therefore you have continual powerful outgassing in one location (like Mauna Loa) AND at the same time continual powerful absorption in another cooler location (such as outside my house in the English Channel)
Presumably once outgassed the co2 must flow in the atmosphere from one location to the other in the equvalent of a co2 jet stream, as we are dealing with very powerful forces.
What I want to know is at what temperature does outgassing stop and absorption begin and is there a neutral phase? More to the point is outgassing more powerful than absorption so is it always going to add to the astmospheric concentration in the long term? Is the temperature of the air the main mechanism for oceans to switch from one phase to the other, or is it sea temperature (for example Pdo plus solar gain) or a combination of both?
To complicate things I understand the first 20 metres of air above the ground is not very well mixed at all, and typically has much greater concentrations of co2 than higher in the atmosphere. Therefore presumably the temperatures undeneath this lower cloak of insulation are higher than they would otherwise be, and therefore prevent excess warmth rising to the second insulating co2 cloak much higher up in the atmosphere where chemical reaction to the sun might have a greater effect.
Your coments appreciated unless you want to get your onions in this afternoon-the experts tell us January is the best month for this although the experts aren’t always right.
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
No onion digging today at below freezing temperatures here. On the subject of CO2 absorption or degassing, there are two papers that provide a lot of basic information.
“Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming” by Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
A graph shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 with warming at various ocean layers.
Ahlbeck writes: “The results are shown in the figure. As one could expect, a temperature increase of one degree celsius will increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in the range of 8 ppm (150 m layer) to 18 ppm (600 m layer). The influence of the assumed layer thickness is great in the beginning, but for thicker layers the influence will level out. If we assume that the whole ocean (mean depth 3795 m) is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, a one degree celsius global warming will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 28 ppm. For a very long time scale (ice ages and interglacials) the whole water volume may be in equilibrium with the atmosphere
In the blog section Dr. Ahlbeck communicates to Theodor Landscheid (17 April 1999) “a sensitivity of about 30 ppm for every degree Celsius seems very reasonable. The ice-core analysis gives about the same sensitivity as the equilibrium calculation when the whole ocean water volume and the whole atmosphere are set into equilibrium with each other.”
If you ignore the “long-term temperature sensitivity” and just look at the short-term impact on the 150m layer, it looks like a 10 degree C increase in sea water temperature (for example from the English channel to Hawaii) will result in an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 80 ppm at equilibrium. If you include the 600m layer this would be 180 ppm. The recorded average January difference between maximum air temperatures at the two locations is reported to be 20 degrees C, but I’ve assumed that the ocean temperature difference would be only half of this.
As you wrote, what is actually happening here is that very large quantities of CO2 are being exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans, with CO2 being absorbed by colder ocean waters only to be de-gassed from warmer oceans. If Ahlbeck’s figures are right this could explain some of the fairly large fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 analyses prior to Mauna Loa.
To your questions, “What I want to know is at what temperature does outgassing stop and absorption begin and is there a neutral phase? More to the point is outgassing more powerful than absorption so is it always going to add to the astmospheric concentration in the long term? Is the temperature of the air the main mechanism for oceans to switch from one phase to the other, or is it sea temperature (for example Pdo plus solar gain) or a combination of both?”
If I understand Ahlbeck’s study, the ocean and atmosphere are always searching an “equilibrium” condition. The main driving mechanisms appear to be atmospheric CO2 concentration and ocean temperature.
In another paper entitled “Absorption of Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere”, Dr. Ahlbeck concludes: “The main part of the total net absorption is controlled by the partial pressure, only a small part is direct accumulation into the backmixed surface layer of the ocean and the “upper biosphere”. This means that there is a considerable self-damping effect that will moderate the future increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.”
http://www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm
From Ahlbeck’s paper:
Sink flow rates (the net sink flow rate from the atmosphere to the biosphere) during different centuries increases with the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the amount of emissions, as follows:
“in the pre-industrial time (280 ppm): 10 % of emissions
today (365 ppm): 10 % of emissions + 4.25 GtC/a
in the future (2xCO2=560 ppm): 10 % of emissions + 14.0 GtC/a
If we imagine a future emission rate of 17 GtC/a at 560 ppm, there will be a net sink flow rate of 1.7 + 14 = 15.7 GtC/a. The “airborne fraction” would be only 8 % of the total emissions.
The IPCC-model implies a net sink flow rate of only 8.5 GtC/a for this situation !“
This was written in 1999.
Since then the global anthropogenic CO2 emission from fossil fuels alone has increased to around 28 GtCO2/a = 7.6 GtC. Adding around 1.5 GtC/a for deforestation, plus 0.5 GtC/a for cement production and deforestation would put this at 9.6 GtC/a.
Using Ahlbeck’s figures this means that the net sink flow rate today (at 386 ppm atmospheric CO2) equals:
4.25 * (386 / 365) + 0.1 * 9.6 = 4.48 + 0.96 = 5.44 GtC
This represents: 5.44 / 9.6 = 57% of CO2 emitted.
If we simply calculate the cumulated total human CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2005 (670 GtCO2), and compare this with the increase in atmospheric CO2 content over the period (300 GtCO2), we see that approximately 45% remained in the atmosphere, roughly confirming Ahlbeck’s calculation.
This tells me that the answer to your question, “is outgassing more powerful than absorption so is it always going to add to the atmospheric concentration in the long term?” is that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will, indeed, increase the “sink rate” (i.e. more CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans).
If we believe Ahlbeck’s long-term temperature sensitivity of 30 ppm per degree C increase in ocean temperature, and believe that a doubling of CO2 (from assumed “pre-industrial 280 ppm” to 560 ppm by year 2100) will cause a greenhouse warming of 0.7 degrees C (of which we have already seen 0.3 degrees today, then it is clear that on a global basis the net impact of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be greater than that of the temperature increase so that an increasing amount will be absorbed by the oceans and biosphere.
If, however, some outside forcing factor would cause a significant increase in global temperature of several degrees C (as has apparently happened a few times in the distant past), then we could expect a net outgassing of CO2 from the ocean until a new equilibrium between ocean temperature and atmospheric CO2 is reached.
In their oversimplistic “agenda driven” analysis, IPCC allude to this future condition when they write (SPM 2007, p.13):
“Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C.”
As you can see, IPCC has even given this phenomenon the sexy sounding name “climate-carbon cycle feedback”, tying it to – you guessed it – AGW, of course, and categorizing it as yet another “positive feedback” to the AGW impact.
Making the calculation you propose could be done using Ahlbeck’s data , but it would be based on equilibrium conditions being reached.
It appears clear to me that atmospheric CO2 readings at tropical temperatures near a volcano have a good chance of being higher than if the readings were taken in Labrador, for example, where there are no volcanoes, colder temperatures and a large forest upwind absorbing CO2. But I have no evidence to prove this.
Sorry I was so long-winded.
Regards,
Max
This is the absolute Holy Grail of the ages….it certainly answers all of the questions regarding the warming of the Earth and how we can stop it dead in it’s tracks to save the world from imminent disaster. Cellular Telephone use is rising as are global temperatures……a DIRECT correlation……no dispute. An absolute consensus has been reached and we now must ban or heavily tax cellular telephone use.
(Anyone that disagrees with my theory must be in the employ of the cellular communication industry or doesn’t care about the health of the planet or polar bears). Cellular telephones are an absolute evil that must be heavily regulated, if not banned outright……
Scratch my last post…..THIS is the absolute Holy Grail of the ages…..BICYCLES! (all of that excessive respiration) See the graph below…..as bicycle sales and usage has increased so have global temperatures. A DIRECT correlation…..no dispute…..I’ve gathered a group of “scientists” (52 to date) that support my theory absolutely and we’ve decided that this constitutes a consensus. Regulation and taxation of bicycles now! Earth First you know!
Anyone that disagrees is a “denier” and has most likely been paid off by the BMU (Bicyclist Manufacturer’s Union) or American Bicycle Path Consortium, (and they detest polar bears and puppies).
Max
I’m glad that it was too cold for you to plant onions-that was a great reply which of course has raised as many questions as it has answered. Your last paragraph in particular is an understatement -logic surely says that colder seas and colder air around Labrador should cause a very considerable co2 difference to that from Mauna Loa.
All of which rasises the question that with such a large potential flux caused by such a small change of temperature, how do the Mauna Loa figures show such a consistent and tiny annual 2pppm increase, sending the Keeling chart up in the way that nature abhors most-a straight line?
It is quite reasonable to believe that in view of all the forgoing, co2 levels should vary by much more than they appear to do in the modern era.
TonyB
Brute
Shame on you for spreading obvious falsifiable lies in your #3472. Fortunately you’ve redeemed yourself with #3473 where the data appears much more robust. Just to play safe however surely we should declare that anybody using a cell phone whilst cycling is obviously an enemy of the people?
In your calculations however surely you’ve forgotten the exponential rise in the polar bear population? They also match the increase in temperature and need to be culled immediately according to a bear reviewed report I have seen.
In a similar vein did you catch my #3465 which might have been written by you?
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
TonyB