Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Posted: July 13, 2016 by tallbloke in Analysis, greenblob, Natural Variation, solar system dynamics

soon2016

Important new paper from Robinsons and Soon available here

This will get the CO2 crew hopping and hooting..

Comments
  1. Mark says:

    Not really, they’ll just point to Willies big oil connections, and his past denial relationship with the Robinsons, and dismiss without reading.

    Why is every paper that looks really good, always so easily shouted down?

  2. Ron Clutz says:

    I like the paper, but it seems to be dated in 2009

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    Finally some real Climate Science. I am encouraged to find professional scientists who agree with me (an amateur climate scientist).

    I could pick many examples in this paper such as this statement:
    “In 1957, Revelle and Seuss (69) estimated that temperature-caused out-gassing of ocean CO2
    would increase atmospheric CO2 by about 7% per °C temperature rise. The reported change during the seven interglacials of the 650,000-year ice core record is about 5% per °C (63), which agrees with the out-gassing calculation.”

    In my amateur way I arrived at essentially the same conclusion here:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

    This is a broad and exciting paper, so it will take a while to fully appreciate it. Thank God that there are still some honest “Climate Scientists”.

  4. Richard111 says:

    Interesting link from gallopingcamel. Have long accepted that the variation of global sea temperature can effect global CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
    My layman bugbear is the belief that there is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’. There are heat retaining gases in the atmosphere, namely nitrogen, oxygen and argon which constitute some 99.9% of the (dry) atmosphere. The claim that warmed air rises and cools is a fallacy. Where did the energy go once the atmosphere is no longer in contact with any surface?
    The answer to that is the radiative gasses contained therein. Kinetic intermolecular heat transfer occurs at all altitudes but becomes most effective above 5 kilometres when e majority of radiated photons can escape to space. Thus increasing CO2 gas will help cool the atmosphere not warm the surface. If what I say is wrong then why haven’t they re-written the Principles of Chemistry?

  5. Roger Clague says:

    Richard111 says:
    July 14, 2016 at 7:58 am

    The claim that warmed air rises and cools is a fallacy.

    This is a bold statement. However I am inclined to agree with it.

    Can you explain your thinking a little. Why does this fallacy exist?

    What do you think causes the pressure and temperature gradients, p/h and T/h, in the atmosphere?

    I think that most vertical movement of air is by diffusion.

  6. USteiner says:

    the shown paper is from 2007??? still worth reading, but did you mean t post a different one?

  7. Edward Henning says:

    That is a very old paper. Is there something new from these guys that by some mistake you did not link to?

  8. tallbloke says:

    It’s new to me.🙂

    Anyway, this point about the amount of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to change in sea surface temperature is an interesting one. Quite clearly, increased CO2 due to human emission, volcanic soils drying etc isn’t immediately absorbed by the ocean. We’ve had several discussions on this site in the past about the e-folding time.

    “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2″ (Jeff ID)

    So there is around 52 times more in the ocean than the atmosphere. This means that the ~30% increase from 270 to 400ppm in the atmospheric concentration is equivalent to less than 1% of oceanic suspended carbon.

    “Over decades, natural cycles in weather and ocean currents alter the rate at which the ocean soaks up and vents carbon dioxide. ”
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

    How good a position are we in to be sure that Henry’s law is applicable over the period of observations we have, given the changing rate of exposure of ‘new’ surface water to a changed surface temperature and atmospheric concentration?

  9. David Russell aka BigWaveDave says:

    After a few weeks arguing with some of the warm-monger trolls on various sites, this site is a breath of fresh air. I skimmed the paper, and appreciate its depth. I plan to read it more closely, soon.

    My only concern is that it appears soft on “the greenhouse effect”, but considering the authors cited, I understand why that is.

    In my discourse with the trolls, I have tried to hone my argument to a manageable size, and because I feel there can’t be enough arguments against a “greenhouse effect”, I offer this brief summary of statements that make me hated in the warmunist community:

    There is a common belief that a “greenhouse effect” is required to maintain the 288°C average surface temperature when in fact the average surface temperature is the result of stored solar energy from the day’s insolation at higher than average temperature, which supplies the heat that is released to space at night and from polar latitudes.

    The solar energy is stored mostly as latent heat in water vapor. The rest is stored as sensible heat in water, regolith, rocks and dry air and in chemical bonds by plant photosynthesis.

    Radiation from water vapor in the atmosphere is from the enormous amount of heat (~2500 KJ/Kg) that is released when water vapor condenses, it is not from “back-radiated” IR from the surface. CO2 doesn’t change state, so it’s only effect it radiated heat can have is limited by its minuscule concentration and low specific heat.

    The amount of heat storage is affected by saturation temperature and surface temperature which are both dependent on pressure.

    Water’s latent heat of evaporation increases as saturation partial pressure and temperature decrease. At 288 K, latent heat of evaporation is about 2465 KJ/Kg. Relative to the specific heats of ice, liquid water, water vapor, dry air, regolith and rocks the latent heat of evaporation in water vapor is about 1170 X, 585 X, 1170 X, 2465 X and 2465 X the heat required to raise a unit mass of each, respectively by one K.

    Water vapor condensing at varied altitudes releases the latent heat, which warms the adjacent atmosphere, water or surface, or at the top of the troposphere, sends its heat toward space.

    Water vapor exiting the oceans also carries liquid water high into the atmosphere which intercepts and thermalizes some insolation before it ever reaches the surface, and stores this heat in the atmosphere.

    The expectation that the surface would be at a temperature closer to 255 K without CO2 treats the surface of the Earth as a black body with all heat of thermalized insolation immediately exiting by radiation, and ignores the reality of the thermal reservoir of heat stored in matter (some stationary, most mobile).

    The truth is that it is physically impossible for the CO2 in the atmosphere to support the effect claimed due to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

  10. Trick says:

    “it seems to be dated in 2009”
    “Finally some real Climate Science.”

    tallbloke et. al. – This write up has reportedly been around in some form since at least 1998. The Oregon Institute address appears to be just a farm on Google maps earth view.

    This Prof. also received the write up & took time to raise some issues in the text/graphs. I spent 30 minutes reading up on the internet but as he wisely writes: “The Internet is not a substitute for library research and I will not assist searchers who try to use it that way.”

    https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

    My 30 minutes included some laughs generated by reading this piece so it was worth it. Apparently the purported lead author has a colorful history.

    http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html

  11. ulriclyons says:

    The wrong sign on the solar correlation, because it’s the wrong metric. Stronger solar solar wind in the 1970’s cooled the AMO, weaker solar wind since 1995 warmed the AMO.

  12. Brett Keane says:

    The Robinsons, Soon and Baliunas, have proved themselves as scientists to be light years ahead of their detractors, Trick. I agree with you, the links were laughable though libellous. Par for the course from believers in the magic gas, and pushers of lies about it.

    Salby’s no-nonsense work on CO2 evolution and sources seems worthy of consideration here. Atmospheric (Applied) Physics appeals as a key in our quest, and his free textbook is illuminating to me. Because I only had a general Physics textbook for reference. Needed for basics as a refresher to start with of course……..

  13. Brett Keane says:

    PS, welcome Dave, a good and informative post.

  14. Hello Tallbloke, regular blog users, readers, friends and Mr Brett Keane.

    Mr Keane remarked

    Salby’s no-nonsense work on CO2 evolution and sources seems worthy of consideration here.

    With moderator permission, I request to be informed if Dr. Salby’s work on stable carbon isotope ratios showing atmospheric CO2 increase to not be correlated with human fossil fuel use has been confirmed by other researchers.

    Many Thanks

  15. Graeme No.3 says:

    What happened to that graph about the temperature rise under various scenarios? As CO2 emissions have been higher that the ‘business as usual’ scenario I would expect that we should be about 1℃ warmer already.
    Has anybody seen the missing heat?
    Should we offer a reward for the finder? Only on submission of a actual amount.

  16. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: July 15, 2016 at 8:29 am

    “How good a position are we in to be sure that Henry’s law is applicable over the period of observations we have, given the changing rate of exposure of ‘new’ surface water to a changed surface temperature and atmospheric concentration?”

    We’re not (in a good position), and its more complex than this TB.

    ‘SS’ (Sea Surface) UVa insolation is ~the ‘most penetrating’ insolation to sea/ocean depths. ‘UVb’ is also a wavelength of insolation that achieves ‘total penetration’ of Earth’s atmosphere much of the time to penetrate ‘SS’.

    NB. The ‘UV’ (UltraViolet) spectra are grouped as UVa, UVb and UVc. ‘UVa’ (which ~always achieves ‘land/ocean’ fall) isn’t an ‘ionising radiation’. However, UVb ‘is’ an ‘ionising radiation’ that often makes surface fall, whereas UVc only lives/survives on/within the ‘outskirts of our atmosphere’.

    Its a hard enough job to ‘circle the square’ WRT ‘ozone production’, but IMHO increased UVb insolation energy levels at the surface ought to lead to SS temp increases. Should this be true there’s a strong reason to suspect a co-relationship between ‘solar energy variation in the UV spectra’ and ‘SS’ temps. If only there was a reliable record source!

    WRT ‘CO2’ and “‘new’ surface water”, all ‘surface water’ is ‘old’! The only ‘new’ water that can be found, IMHO, is floating in the troposphere as newly condensed ‘water droplets’ within cloud. Clouds are CO2 ‘scrubbers’.🙂 CO2 is the ‘first’ gas to diffuse into ‘pure water’, thus, I presume that ‘cloud condensation rate’ on a ~global scale should be reflected in an ‘atmospheric CO2 survey’. Again, is there a reliable record/source? The Mauna Loa record shows seasonal variation due to, it is assumed, flora seasonal activity change, but is this hiding something else?

    TBH tallbloke, I’ve come to the conclusion that CO2 atmospheric concentration levels are ‘indicators’ of the ‘variant dynamic states’ between ‘insolation’, ‘SSTs’ (Sea Surface Temperatures) and the ‘speed’ of the ‘atmospheric hydrological cycle’. We only need to ‘measure’ it for ‘insight’ into ‘other dynamics’.

    All of Earth’s surfaces are ‘evaporatively cooled’ in any event. Why would CO2 make much/any difference?

    Best regards, Ray.

  17. suricat says:

    Graeme No.3 says: July 20, 2016 at 8:45 am

    “What happened to that graph about the temperature rise under various scenarios? As CO2 emissions have been higher that the ‘business as usual’ scenario I would expect that we should be about 1℃ warmer already.
    Has anybody seen the missing heat?”

    Let’s be ‘clear’ Graeme. ‘Heat’ is ‘energy’ and as such requires a ‘complex computation’ to arrive at a ‘given temperature’ for a ‘given scenario’.

    ‘Energy quanta’ and ‘temperature’ don’t ‘co-relate’ without ‘specific heat’ data!

    Nuf said. Ask if you want expansion to my post.

    Best regards, Ray.

  18. Brett Keane says:

    Robert Bumbalough says:
    July 19, 2016 at 3:51 pm : I/we would be grateful if you would contact Mr Salby yourself about that…..

  19. suricat says:

    Brett Keane says: July 22, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Hi Brett, this hot spot piqued my interest so I went to your link. I didn’t see much of interest there other than the linked post seemed ‘one sided’ with a bias towards ‘CO2 emission’. I posted there, and was published, with:

    “AnonymousJuly 25, 2016 at 4:50 PM

    Hi ‘MS’. I don’t have a ‘clue’ as to who you are, but your blog was linked to/by ‘Tallbloke’s Talkshop’ so I came here.

    I’m a retired ‘universal millwright’ with an interest in ‘climatology’ since the UN declared that the ‘ozone hole’ was a risk to our survival. Who are you?

    I read nothing in your article WRT the absorption of CO2 by ‘new water’ generated by ‘cloud droplet formation’. CO2 is the first gas to be absorbed of/from local gasses into pure water. Surely this ‘forcing’ is worth mention?

    The gaseous and solid ‘states’ of H2O preclude CO2 in their make-up, but the ‘liquid phase’ of H2O (water) permits a ‘gaseous inclusion’ (thus, ‘fizzy drinks’).

    IMHO this post ignores the value of ‘new water’ in the reduction of atmospheric CO2 in the ‘rain’ that adds to the ‘pot’ of CO2 in the oceans! Systems that ‘decrement’ atmospheric CO2 really do need to be mentioned ‘alongside’ the systems that ‘accrete’ atmospheric CO2.

    Best regards, Ray Dart.”

    I’ve not received any reply yet, but the page is ‘old’ (October 7 2014 was the last entry before mine) so I don’t expect a response.

    Just ‘what’ is the argument between you and Robert?

    Best regards, Ray.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s