 |
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 |
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
 Posted: 11 May 2009 03:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes! I agree that there are several issues at work that are more important than CO2 and there is no proof that CO2 has or will have an effect on the global temperature.
The past climate variations can "ALL" be linked to natural variations and I mean ALL throughout history. It seems that CO2 is at best a spectator or along for the ride. Increaseing temperatures allow more CO2 into the Biosphere and decreaseing temperatures tend to allow more CO2 to be sequestered in its many hideing places because it is not needed in a cooler world.
CO2 is a necessary part of the life cycle in the oceans and the entire Biosphere.
HQ:
If the world depended on CO2 to regulate the global temperatures then the globe would be lifeless from either excess heat or excess cold at times in the pastr when CO2 concentrations were higher and lower but temperatures did not coinside with CO2. So go figure that out! Or are you saying that someone Cast a magic spell on CO2 that gave it powers that it did not have in the past? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 420
Location: Pembrokeshire
|
| Posted: 13 May 2009 06:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting comment here from WUWT in the Spencer on an alternate view of CO2 increases thread. The logic of the argument makes sense to me. Can one find any proof for the argument?
| Quote: |
Dave in Delaware (13:40:02) :
I have always found Dr Spenser’s explanations to be well thought out and easy to follow. Thank you again Dr Spenser.
In a related thought –
Discussions of Thermohaline Circulation, the ocean conveyor belt, tend to focus on present time down welling of the conveyor in the North Atlantic.
I have often wondered, but found little published, on what happens when and where the conveyor resurfaces in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. We are told that the ocean conveyor cycle takes 800 to 1800 years to complete a circuit. To my mind that says that we have been seeing the ‘return’ of deep ocean waters that disappeared down into the conveyor from roughly the time of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
Possible implications from ocean conveyor upwelling
* Since the conveyor starts in the cold North Atlantic, it should on average have more dissolved CO2 than the warmer Pacific and Indian Oceans, hence it would serve as a net source of CO2 released to the atmosphere in those regions.
* On top of that, the MWP atmospheric CO2 was likely as high or higher than present, so the dissolved CO2 that went into the conveyor from 800 years ago was likely higher than say the early Industrial Revolution / Little Ice Age atmospheric CO2 levels. That returning CO2 would tend to drive up present day atmospheric levels, and may have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere slowly over the past 200 years.
* Carbon/CO2 is also added to the deep levels of the conveyor by deposition from upper ocean organic matter. That added organic matter has a d13C (C13 isotope) content similar to petroleum derived from fossil fuels. The implication being, you can’t tell ‘old ocean’ CO2 from current man-made CO2 based on the C13 content.
The IPCC is only able to account for about half of the CO2 in the atmosphere if the driver were all man-made CO2. The up trend in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate well with man-made CO2 generated since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the natural atmospheric exchange of CO2 is more than able to absorb the relatively small man-made contribution on an annual basis. If real driver for increased atmospheric CO2 is the oceans, perhaps the ‘returned’ CO2 from the ocean conveyor is the source.
regards,
DJH P. E. (retired)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 420
Location: Pembrokeshire
|
| Posted: 14 May 2009 05:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another interesting comment by George E. Smith {18:02:08} :, who understands more about this subject than I do,  over at WUWT which supports what I believe about CO2 and posted over at the Albedo of Water thread.
He says it, and more, much better than I could.
| Quote: | A general principle of GHG “global warming” is that a GHG such as water vapor or even CO2 absorbs surface emitted long wave infrared radiation which is in the 13.5-16.5 micron wavelength range for CO2, and covers a much larger spectral range in the case of water vapor. That captured energy is transferred to the normal atmospheric gases through molecular collision processes; which apparently happen sooner than spontaneous re-emission from the capturing molecule (at low altitudes and higher pressures. The net result is a heating of the atmospheric gases themselves (N2, O2, Ar). Those ordinary atmospheric gases couldn’t care less what species of absorbing molecule crashed into them to convey that heating energy to them. As a result of that heating of the atmosphere, the atmosphere being physical matter above zero K emits a thermal radiation spectrum that depends on the material (atmosphere) temperature, generally following in some fashion the black body radiation spectrum. So as a result of atmospheric heating the amount of long wave radiation emitted from that material increases probably as the 4th power of the temperature (K). That radiation is generally emitted in an isotropic radiation pattern; so about half of it can be expected to head downwards towards the earth; about 705 of which is actually the oceans. The remaining 30% which lands on material which is other than water results in no further CO2 emission to the atmosphere; so no positive feedback there.
The 70% that does strike the oceans or any other water gets absorbed in the top 10 microns of the water surface, resulting in rather prompt increase in evaporation due to the extra surface energy.
The amount of heating of the oceans due to that long wave IR can’t be very large, because only a few microns of the surface absorbs it; and the resulting water evaporation also carries a lot of latent heat back into the atmosphere.
So if you are looking for GHG caused atmospheric warming to warm enough ocean water to disgorge a bunch more CO2; my guess is you will look for a long time.
So I think your concept of a positive feedback effect from further emission of CO2 from long wave IR heated ocean water, is all wet. Now incoming sunlight which penetrates deep in the oceans and has a much higher irradiance level that the atmospheric IR emissions; will in fact warm a lot of water and cause increased CO2 emissions.
Not all em radiations are created equal, and the thermal effects of long wave IR are quite different from those due to solar spectrum radiation when it comes to the effect on water. Notice that the thermal radiation from the atmosphere should carry no fingerprints of whatever molecular species captured that energy in the first place, because that atmospheric radiation is coming from ordinary N2, O2, and Ar molecules.
I agree that if the ocean isn’t warming (well the MMGWCC alarmists claim it is warming so fast it is going to flood all of us), then it wouldn’t be outgassing CO2 at an increased rate.
The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is decreasing is only evidence that a source of depleted C13 carbon is being burned; it is not evindence that that source is the origin of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. |
|
|
| 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
