 |
Green World Trust
No greenwash here. Just truths as we find them, open to discussion and change
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
 Posted: 25 May 2009 08:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Richard111 wrote: | | Thought for the day. Water absorbs a goodly range of IR but IR doesn't penetrate the water more than a few microns. |
Just to be clear, are you saying the sun does not warm the oceans. ?
I don't think you are, because the solar input is short wave, not long wave,
but I have to ask.
If I understand correctly your suggesting greenhouse gases can not warm the oceans to any significant degree or even all at,
which I'd agree with.
I completely agree about the massive yet largely ignored heat pump by water vapour.
Evapouration is endothermic (requires heat) and occurs in massive amounts at the earth's surface,
condensation is exothermic (gives off heat) so cloud formation releases massive amounts of heat.
Then the cold rain falls to the ground, a massive transport of cool to the surface.
It seems radiation budgets would miss these movements as they involve no radiation except during cloud formation.
There is also the thorny issue of heat transferred in the oceans from the light side of the earth to the dark side as the earth rotates.
That is not taken into account either.
It would seem "radiation budgets" start and finish with the right (ish) figures, excluding geothermal inputs,
but completely mess up the inbetween parts because of their AGW / the greenhouse effect is dominant assumptions.
In short, they are useless in the real world, and give an insight into how unrealistic climate modelling really is at present.
GCMs, and radiation budgets miss the main point completely,
why the lack of variation in temperature on the earths surface between day and night.
That is the key question to my mind.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jij
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 3
Location: London
|
| Posted: 26 May 2009 03:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, all good stuff, but I don't think it gets to the nub of the question.
You seem to have decided that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is doesn't seem all that scientific to, given all the unknowns.
If you had said "why humans are likely to be the primary cause of the recent recorded increase in the atmosphere", I would think greater of your scientific position.
Do we know everything the atmosphere↔ocean CO2 exchange? I don't think we do. For example, is the deep ocean conveyor responsible for the 800 year lag in temperature versus CO2 correlation see in the ice cores? We know CO2 can be absorbed in very large quantities in colder surface waters at high latitudes (by Henry's Law). We know this can happen in a matter of weeks, because of the strong short term correlation of CO2 increases and temperature and pushes the equilibrium of CO2 (g) ↔ CO2 (aq) dissolution to the left or right for a temperature increase or decrease, respectively.
When the upper ocean waters are subducted down to deeper waters, the CO2 cannot become gaseous because of the immense pressure (equilibrium pushed to the right). The water resurfaces again nearer the tropics hundreds of years later, only to give up its CO2 under Henry's Law once again because of reduced pressure and increased temperature.
Is this important? Can we say for certain? It would seem to fit with the ice core evidence.
Could the recent CO2 increase have been driven from CO2 that was dissolved in the oceans 800 years ago? If it wasn't for the increased dissolved CO2 in the surface waters then the anthropogenic CO2 increment would have been absorbed into the surface waters in a matter of weeks in line with Henry's Law.
Remember the atmosphere only contains circa 850 gigatonnes of carbon and the oceans 35,000GT. So a small change to the dynamics of the large atmosphere↔ocean exchange could feasibly make a large difference to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. And visa versa, a large increment to the atmospheric CO2, as we have imposed, would make relatively little difference to the ocean carbon content.
After we've burnt all known fossil fuel reserves we release around 6,000GT which is a ~16% increase on the atmosphere↔ocean system total of 35,850GT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 26 May 2009 06:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek wrote: | | Just to be clear, are you saying the sun does not warm the oceans. ? |
Not at all. See the water absorption graph here , scroll down 3/4 of the page, title is The visible and UV spectra of liquid water.
(I've directed you to this graph in your other posts.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 26 May 2009 09:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great link Richard111 thank you.
My comment you quote was somewhat T-I-C,
as the following sentences I put hopefully showed.
I would of included that link though if I'd known of it,
it is excellant, well worth adding to my favourites.
Thanks again.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FerdiEgb
Experienced User
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Stabroek, Belgium
|
| Posted: 26 May 2009 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jij wrote: | Thanks, all good stuff, but I don't think it gets to the nub of the question.
You seem to have decided that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is doesn't seem all that scientific to, given all the unknowns.
If you had said "why humans are likely to be the primary cause of the recent recorded increase in the atmosphere", I would think greater of your scientific position.
Do we know everything the atmosphere↔ocean CO2 exchange? I don't think we do. For example, is the deep ocean conveyor responsible for the 800 year lag in temperature versus CO2 correlation see in the ice cores? We know CO2 can be absorbed in very large quantities in colder surface waters at high latitudes (by Henry's Law). We know this can happen in a matter of weeks, because of the strong short term correlation of CO2 increases and temperature and pushes the equilibrium of CO2 (g) ↔ CO2 (aq) dissolution to the left or right for a temperature increase or decrease, respectively.
When the upper ocean waters are subducted down to deeper waters, the CO2 cannot become gaseous because of the immense pressure (equilibrium pushed to the right). The water resurfaces again nearer the tropics hundreds of years later, only to give up its CO2 under Henry's Law once again because of reduced pressure and increased temperature.
Is this important? Can we say for certain? It would seem to fit with the ice core evidence.
Could the recent CO2 increase have been driven from CO2 that was dissolved in the oceans 800 years ago? If it wasn't for the increased dissolved CO2 in the surface waters then the anthropogenic CO2 increment would have been absorbed into the surface waters in a matter of weeks in line with Henry's Law.
Remember the atmosphere only contains circa 850 gigatonnes of carbon and the oceans 35,000GT. So a small change to the dynamics of the large atmosphere↔ocean exchange could feasibly make a large difference to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. And visa versa, a large increment to the atmospheric CO2, as we have imposed, would make relatively little difference to the ocean carbon content.
After we've burnt all known fossil fuel reserves we release around 6,000GT which is a ~16% increase on the atmosphere↔ocean system total of 35,850GT |
Jij,
First of all, the mass balance makes it impossible that anything else than human emissions are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere:
natural sources + emissions - natural sinks = increase in the atmosphere
or
natural sources - natural sinks = increase - emissions = 4 - 8 = -4 GtC/yr
With other words, nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2. Even if we don't know anything about any individual or combination of natural flows, there is no net addition from nature to the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere over at least the past 50 years (although there is a lot of exchange)... All other observations confirm that.
E.g. the 13C content of all ocean water is too high: the pre-industrial equilibrium in the atmosphere was at about -6.4 per mil for the atmosphere and near +5 per mil for surface ocean waters:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
This excludes oceans as main source, as an extra contribution of (deep) ocean CO2 would INcrease the d13C level of the atmosphere, while we see a DEcrease.
The pre-industrial long-term CO2 level (derived from ice cores) is proportional to changes in temperature. Over the whole 420,000 years of Vostok glacials/interglacials about 8 ppmv/°C (recently extended to 800,000 years by the Dome C ice core):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
The MWP/LIA difference in temperature was about 0.8°C, this resulted in a drop of about 6 ppmv in the Law Dome ice core (with a lag of about 50 years, resolution of 40 years), again about 8 ppmv/°C:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
Thus an increase in temperature since the LIA may be responsible for a maximum of 8 ppmv of the current 100+ ppmv increase.
The same for the ocean currents: even if CO2 from the MWP returns now in the atmosphere, the MWP levels were not higher than 300 ppmv in equilibrium between release (near the equator) and absorption (near the poles)...
Henry's law is not applicable here, we aren't talking about pure water, this is seawater, which contains far more CO2 than fresh water, but by chemical processes, not simple solubility. The real exchange is governed by the pressure difference of CO2 in the atmosphere against the pressure of CO2 in the ocean surface. While the pCO2 of the atmosphere is near the same over all oceans (+/- 10 ppmv), the pCO2 in the oceans differs enormous by temperature but also salt content, pH and last but not least biological life. See for a very good introduction:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following pages.
And the exchange speed is far less than you expect and strongly depends of wind speed (see the Feely pages in the previous link).
That the oceans are relative slow emitters/absorbers is already clear from the seasonal variability: the trend is opposite to the ocean's temperatures: less CO2 in summer, more CO2 in winter (especially in the NH), caused by the uptake/release of CO2 by vegetation. The oceans are not capable to follow this.
That is also the case for the human contribution: only half of it (in mass) is absorbed by vegetation (which have a limited uptake capacity) and oceans over a year.
I agree that on long term, the deep oceans will absorb most of the current extra CO2 without much left in the atmosphere. But that doesn't help to change the fact that it will take a lot of time: a half life time of about 40 years, far more than the 5 years of Segalstad (which is a different half life time: the residence time of an individual molecule), but far less than the mixed life times of the IPCC...
The current variability in natural sink capacity is +/- 2 GtC/yr, about halve the increase trend. That is the case for the past 50 years. The variability is largely temperature (and precipitation) related. There is no sign that the variability increases or decreases. The sink capacity itself increases in ratio with the emissions, in average 55% of the emissions. There is no sign that a natural mechanism, other than the emission increase is responsible for the increasing sink rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 27 May 2009 07:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Question. The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be fairly linear. Given the recent economic rise of China and India and the consequent increase in fossil fuel consumption, when can we expect to see this recorded on the CO2 trace?
China and India have expanded their production capability hughly of the past twenty years. China is credited with passing the production level of the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FerdiEgb
Experienced User
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Stabroek, Belgium
|
| Posted: 27 May 2009 09:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: | Question. The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be fairly linear. Given the recent economic rise of China and India and the consequent increase in fossil fuel consumption, when can we expect to see this recorded on the CO2 trace?
China and India have expanded their production capability hughly of the past twenty years. China is credited with passing the production level of the USA. |
Normally one should see a decline in increase rate (not a decline in CO2 levels!) in ratio with the decline in global emissions... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 27 May 2009 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FerdiEgb wrote: | | Richard111 wrote: | Question. The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be fairly linear. Given the recent economic rise of China and India and the consequent increase in fossil fuel consumption, when can we expect to see this recorded on the CO2 trace?
China and India have expanded their production capability hughly of the past twenty years. China is credited with passing the production level of the USA. |
Normally one should see a decline in increase rate (not a decline in CO2 levels!) in ratio with the decline in global emissions... |
I'm sorry, that went right past me. I was completely unaware that there was any decline in global emissions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FerdiEgb
Experienced User
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Stabroek, Belgium
|
| Posted: 27 May 2009 04:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: |
I'm sorry, that went right past me. I was completely unaware that there was any decline in global emissions. |
Not yet known in figures, but the Chinese say that their export is reduced with over 30%, including closing factories etc... The same for the US and European economies. And especially long distance traffic of humans and goods.
Until last year, there was a near linear increase in yearly emissions and in yearly increase of CO2 levels, which gives a slightly non-linear increase of accumulated emissions and total CO2 levels:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 27 May 2009 05:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, so! Thank you. That is interesting, will be watching for any change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jij
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 3
Location: London
|
| Posted: 27 May 2009 07:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FerdiEgb wrote: |
Jij,
First of all, the mass balance makes it ... |
Ferdindand, thank you for the detailed reply, I'll do my best to digest it over the next day or two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 28 May 2009 07:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been given the nod that the subject of rise of CO2 is natural will be given new impetus in the near future,
in much the same way this thread has already covered other areas leading to a couple of other threads here..
Not by me, but some else, it'll be goood.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sunsettommy
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2009 02:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is that the global temperature today is about the same as it was in 1980.
An even bigger problem is why does the southern hemisphere fail to warm up since 1980?
Since CO2 is supposedly a well mixed gas.Yet delivers mixed results.That is if you believe CO2 is the main cause of the small temperature increase in the NH part of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 11 Oct 2009 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've already posted this over at Global Warming Skeptics but decided to add it here as this is a specific CO2 thread.
------------------------------------------------
Do we REALLY know how much CO2 there is in the oceans?
I ask because in my daily perusal of GREENIE WATCH this rainy Sunday morning of October 11, 2009, my attention was drawn to this horrifying report:
Lethal gas may have to be stored under villages, says adviser
One of the comments mentioned Lake Nyos in the Cameroons, so I googled it and arrived at the following site:
HOW VOLCANOES WORK
LAKE NYOS (1986)
| Quote: | | It had been known for years that the water in Lake Nyos was extremely enriched in dissolved CO2. The lake overlies a volcanic source, which appears to release CO2 and other gases. However, most of this gas does not escape into the atmosphere, but rather dissolves into the bottom waters of the lake. At a depth of over 200 meter, the sheer weight of the upper lake levels exerts considerable pressures on the bottom waters. This confining pressure allows CO2 to dissolve into the bottom waters without escaping to the surface, in much the same way that the cap on a carbonated beverage prevents CO2 from bubbling out of its container. At a depth of 200 meters, water can hold 15 times its own volume in CO2. It has been estimated that every liter of water in the lower part of the lake may have contained between 1 to 5 liters of CO2! |
Now, there are a LOT of undersea volcanoes. They can be quite deep. I have seen videos of "black smokers" thousands of feet down. That is a lot of pressure.
At a depth of 200 meters, water can hold 15 times its own volume in CO2.
To me this makes a mockery of the claim that the ocean/air ratio of CO2 is 50:1.
Does anyone know of any data quantifying this source of CO2 in the oceans?
Has anyone ever brought up a sealed flask of deep sea water and opened it at sea level pressure to measure how much gas is in the water?
Is there a CO2 lapse rate in the sea column? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimbo1490
Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 6
Location: Orlando
|
| Posted: 26 Oct 2009 04:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: |
At a depth of 200 meters, water can hold 15 times its own volume in CO2.
To me this makes a mockery of the claim that the ocean/air ratio of CO2 is 50:1.
|
This does not mean what I think YOU THINK it means.
I'm guessing that YOU think it means that the oceans hold less than the often reported concentration ~50:1 ratio WRT the atmosphere.
What it really means is that fresh water can hold MUCH MORE than this in some special cases, but in the end this has probably little relevancy for the oceans.
Let's look at how this data compares to the '50:1' ratio first. The 50:1 ratio means that if the gas above the liquid (in this case the atmosphere) contains X parts CO2, then the liquid (the oceans) must therefore contain 50X this concentration. So if the atmosphere contains 200ppm, then the ocean would contain 50 X 200ppm or 10, 000ppm, or 1% dissolved CO2.
The data you just presented shows that in some special circumstances of pressure and temperature the liquid (in this case a freshwater lake) may contain as much as a 15:1 ratio of CO2/water, which is a much 'richer' concentration than 1%.
Now because the oceans are a brine solution, it is probably impossible for the CO2 concentration to ever get this high because dissolved CO2 in an alkaline brine undergoes a series of reactions that precipitate the CO2 out of solution as carbonate mineral, thus the virtually infinite buffering capacity of the oceans.
This becomes the 'final' resting place of 'excess' CO2, NOT the liquid oceans.
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
