|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 3, 2011 13:25:46 GMT 1
As regards Segalstad, I just note that on his own web-site the CO2 stuff is published by:
The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum
Not exactly a totally reputable organisation, and certainly NOT a peer-reviewed academic journal. Indeed on Web of Science (where we all go to see how many papers people have in journals and conferences), I can find only 10 papers listed for Segalstad. Geologists MAY do it differently, but means I can't find (so far) any of this CO2 ratios stuff in the peer-reviewed scientific press.
Because I was wondering what reponses had been made in academia. Seems none so far, since even Google scholar only gives the ESEF stuff 11 citations, and only 1 journal article that cites it, by a Fred Goldberg.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 3, 2011 14:38:37 GMT 1
Does seem to me that M, when pressed, trys to drown us in posts, rather than sticking to the question...................
Except that makes it sound as if its small because its parts per million. Except we are talking about 300-400 ppm over 1960 to present day, so even a change of only a few ppm per year can have large effect over time.
Why this stressing the billions of tonnes figure? What matters is the comparison with the billions with the total mass of the atmosphere. Okay, that gives about 6ppm for total fossil fuel output, but since CO2 only around 300-odd to start with, then even a few ppm is detectable.
Its the couple to 300 ration that matters, NOT trying to distract us by saying its ONLY a few ppm (goodness, how teeny), even for billions of tonnes of CO2. Its just trying to confuse by using orders of magnitude.
What is cute is that you can clearly see tha annual variation of CO2 due to plant growth, but the increase swamps that. Despite all your claims about CO2 as plant food......................
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 3, 2011 14:47:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 3, 2011 15:03:27 GMT 1
Hey, when I got to the bit about the 'soda' it said '3 litres of CO2 to 1 litre of water" [note proper spelling!], so my idea of soft drinks adding to the environmental CO2 is not so daft, except where did that CO2 come from?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2011 15:52:32 GMT 1
"even a change of only a few ppm per year can have large effect over time".
Sez you. That is the heart of the whole AGW debate - and it is not to be won with a casual throw away assertion like that.
"What does matter is a NEW source of CO2 to add to the mix".
Again, sez you! Nature doesn't know the difference between sources. It's all plant food and anthopogenic CO2 is anyway a minute proportion of the total fluxes between sources and sinks.
If an ocean warms because its unusually sunny the amount of CO2 outgassed could easily be as great as annual anthropogenic emissions. Sez me!
Remember, it's proportions that count in the carbon cycle, STA not absolute tonnage. I think this statement is uncontroversial?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2011 16:28:05 GMT 1
Thanks for the Segalstad presentation, stu. I'm sure (almost!) that STA understands it and can check his maths but I can't, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 3, 2011 18:30:46 GMT 1
Well the 'soft drinks $ food' industry uses 5% of the world production of CO2, however much that is. Whilst looking around the 'net, I got the impression that CO2 as part of the 'greenhouse gas senario' plateaus at a certain point, thereafter any increase in CO2 then radiation absorbtion/reflection changes little. Presumably, that goes for incoming radiation as well as outgoing. Fiddling around with Carbon isotopes and beta particles, well at least I understand about 'weakly interactive'. Carbons 12 $ 13 are said to be stable, but again there are exceptions, so not always, this leaves some doubt as these interactions are complex, and not in quarantine, and made more involved over long times. Carbon 14 has an half-life of 5,700 years, not long in context of the Earth. "Weapons testing through 1963 added about 9.6 million Ci [Curie en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie ], an increase of 3% above natural steady-state levels." Ice Cores. I always had some doubts about these, don't get me wrong, they must be good indicators for trends over time, but to plot intricate curves then relate to some other means of measurement to fill in the missing bits, has got to be treated with respect and a wary eye. Their location, even if the previous remarks are inaccurate, can only give a value at that point on Earth, and then only if its relative position is static. Then it is found that it's not just a case of measuring the cores and relating them to years/periods [eg. halt inch to 100 yrs], there is the 'concertina effect' so the ice etc can in parts be stretched and compressed in varying amounts. Here the years are made to fit in non-linear fashion by the experimenter. Beta Particles. "Beta particles travel several feet in open air and are easily stopped by solid materials. When a beta particle has lost its energy, it is like any other loose electron. Whether in the outdoor environment or in the body, these electrons are then picked up by a positive ion." "The speed of individual beta particles depends on how much energy they have, and varies over a wide range. It is their excess energy, in the form of speed, that causes harm to living cells. When transferred, this energy can break chemical bonds and form ions." "What Is It? Carbon-14 is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of carbon. (An isotope is a different form of an element that has the same number of protons in the nucleus but a different number of neutrons.) Carbon is widely distributed in nature and is present in all organic compounds. Natural forms include diamonds and graphite, which are among the hardest and softest minerals known, respectively. The nucleus of a carbon-14 atom contains six protons and eight neutrons. There are two stable (nonradioactive) isotopes of carbon: carbon-12, which has six protons and six neutrons, and carbon-13, which has six protons and seven neutrons. Carbon-12 comprises most (about 99%) of naturally occurring carbon, and carbon-13 accounts for about 1.1%. Naturally occurring carbon contains an extremely small fraction (about two trillionths) of radioactive carbon-14." ... "The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, and it decays by emitting a beta particle with no attendant gamma radiation to produce nitrogen-14." [so in context of this discussion, we have a 'maverick N-14 kicking around, so what happens to that] ... "Weapons testing through 1963 added about 9.6 million Ci, an increase of 3% above natural steady-state levels." so to cover that, various papers on this subject, start or stop their graphs at 1950 to cover this, but, note the entry under 'Nukes' about natural reactors. www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/carbon14.pdfStuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 3, 2011 20:16:18 GMT 1
"Natural Sources [of CO2] These sources of carbon dioxide are produced by the Earth’s natural volcanic activity and can include both geothermal sources and natural wells. Carbon dioxide can be found in underground wells at concentrations of 90% to almost 100% depending on the location of the well. Large carbon dioxide wells exist in the United States (e.g. in Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and in Europe (e.g. at Répcelak and Oelboe in Hungary and at Bad Driburg-Herste and Rottenburg in Germany). Geothermal carbon dioxide is found in numerous locations across Spain and Italy (e.g. at Torre Alfina)." www.jmcatalysts.com/ptd/site.asp?siteid=671&pageid=672..... Cosmic Rays. "Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the reactions results in ozone depletion. The magnitude of damage, however, is very small compared to the depletion caused by CFCs.[citation required]" First of all note the 'citation required' , I'm suspicious on that score, originally we all believed what we were told about CFC's, but recently I heard that the Ozone Hole had increased, [it's not really an hole, it's a depletion, in varying amounts, so if You like, less molecules spread more thinly] but we have drastically reduced our use of CFC's, despite some countries ignoring it, apparently they can still be bought in quantity. [truly a case of 'Psst! wanna buy some Psst!] So why the reticence, weeell, it's politics and Politics, the Americans had a real brain-wave, a wizzo idea, why not take one of those 'drones', named 'Glopak'. I think that the results obtained led to some rethinking. Cosmic Radiation and it's effect on the troposphere. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Galactic_cosmic_rayswww.nasa.gov/externalflash/Glopac/ once the pic comes up right click on it a move the mouse so it shows the nose of the 'plane the is a light point to it and there's the 'UAS - Ozone... here's a preliminary .pdf www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/previous/2010/pdfs/7-Elkins.pdf "FCAS — Focused Cavity Aerosol Spectrometer NMASS — Nuclei-mode Aerosol Size Spectrometer FCAS and NMASS measure the size and abundance of particles (between 4 and 1000 nanometers) in the atmosphere. The measurements will improve our understanding of the properties, origin, fate, and impacts of these particles. Aerosols play an important but incompletely understood role in climate and atmospheric dynamics: reactions that occur on the surface of these particles in the stratosphere can affect ozone loss and recovery; some aerosols reflect sunlight back to space and cool the planet; and high-altitude particles can serve as nuclei for the formation of high-altitude ice clouds that play a role in the Earth's radiation budget." StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 3, 2011 22:24:03 GMT 1
Cosmic Rays [shouldn't that be particles?] "Unexplained Pattern of Cosmic Rays Discovered" so that could change the Ozone levels... www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100728111723.htmStuartG and no, I'm not referring to this... "Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research" www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htmor this... "Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds" www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htmbut this... "Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays" focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8"Their results suggest that the damage done by cosmic rays could be millions of times larger than anyone previous believed and may force atmospheric scientists to reexamine their models of the antarctic ozone hole. ..." prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e078501and this to the contrary? www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/ozone-holes-and-cosmic-rays/but whatever is true, StuartG Stop Press: "Severe Health Impacts Associated with Higher Ozone Levels Due to Climate Change" www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22495I feel I've come full circle, I started work on the 'California Cycle' [no not a 'bike] Los Angeles in the sixties was suffering from smog from the use of 'Auto Mob-beels' combined with the 'bowl' that LA is located in and the Sun, meant that they were poisioning themselves. Well, in the intervening years we've [all the World, justabout] complied, to our benefit, now it's GW, no they can change this time, electric car that's the answer, or get off their r's and walk [do 'em more good]. Ozone is a bit troublesome at ground level, does things to the nose for starters, then the back of the throat, and by that time the lungs are protesting.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 7, 2011 12:00:21 GMT 1
Jonjel [or anyone who agrees with this statement], "proved without a shadow of doubt in the vulcanism thread" A sweeping statement, where on this thread is it so? Cheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 7, 2011 12:44:46 GMT 1
Nope, because what I was referring to was the increase in CO2 over time, NOT the next question as to what that increased CO2 may or may not do.
Except when we were comparing volcanic with human sources, tonnage WAs the issue.
You can't get around the question either by ASSUMING that since the fluxes in the carbon cycle are huge, that a NEW source can't perturb the equilibrium value of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, its trying to confuse by throwing orders of magnitude about.
I see that M has refused, yet again, to make any comment as regards Caseys confused statements about volcanic versus human-produced CO2 sources................
I found this when I was looking for any actual journal papers by him on this, and frankly I'm not interested in checking any sums, because what you really need to check are his sources (is he using the correct figures), and his assumptions, and see HOW the same process carried out by others gives DIFFERENT results.
Given that he doesn't seem to have a journal paper on this subject (which would have given other specialists in the field the chance to do a detailed check on his analysis), then that kind of says it all for me. IF his case was as watertight as he thinks it is, then he would have published (journals DO publish contrary opinions provided the EVIDENCE is there -- ie the data and the analysis, and in this case he'd have to present a clear argument why what others have done is incorrect.) -- he hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2011 12:55:22 GMT 1
I think what has happened on this thread is that those who hype and parrot anthropogenic global warming - including organisations like the US Geological Survey (who should know better with their 100 x nonsense!) - have had it conclusively demonstrated to them that anthropogenic CO2 emissions (whether stated in tons OR proportions) are a tiny fraction of the total in atmospheric/oceanic circulation. They are simply dwarfed by the promordial "PRIMARY" source of global CO2 which is VULCANISM both terrestrial and undersea where it is emitted from the scores of thousands of miles of mid-ocean ridges, tectonic boundaries, elsewhere on the ocean floor and round the subduction zones and then exchanged between ocean and atmosphere via ocean warming (outgassing) and cooling (absorption).
The atmosphere it very much the tail in this exchange and the ocean is the dog.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 7, 2011 13:01:28 GMT 1
The total fluxes line -- which ignores the measured CO2 RISE since the industrial revolution, and the correlation with human activity. It's the historical angle that you can't ignore.
Yes, at first guess, your attitude would be -- natural flows MUCH larger, that new source won't make any difference, yet the measurements disagree. Hence our initial, back-of-the-envelope hopes turn out to be demonstrably false. Clinging to that envelope in the light of the actual evidence seems a very poor sort of straw to clutch at....................
Anyway, those of us in science know that when you have a complicated system with various negative and positive feedback loops, a seemingly small change CAN have large effects. What I think is important here is that it's not just one of the existing figures changing a bit, but a NEW source coming in, which doesn't fit into the same feedback loops as the previous natural sources and sinks.
Larger lesson: our intuition (and our hopes) are often misleading. Just because anthropogenic CO2 emissions look small compared to natural fluxes (3.3 gigatonnes, compared to 120, say) doesn't mean we can ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 7, 2011 13:05:36 GMT 1
The purported measurements of atmospheric CO2 are not sound any more than the measurement of global temperature is.
When one cannot rely on the data one most certainly cannot rely on the hypotheses constructed upon them.
A NEW source of CO2 (fossil fuel) has no more significance in the scheme of things than an extra source of naturally emitted CO2 caused by ocean outgassing during a warming period.
And what makes you think there is "an equilibrium value", a goldilocks "just right" level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is plain fanatasy and mere assertion!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 7, 2011 13:14:58 GMT 1
Sorry, is that IT. A vain claim that we can't measure it (or that our historical measurements are all unsound).
ALL of them? Is that REALLY the best you can do?
If you care to refer back to CO2 isotopic analysis (which you seem to be ignoring since I have shown that your chum Casey was a bit wrong), I should point out that this was done by people who had no bloody interest whatsoever in global warming, in that they wanted to sort out carbon dating. Ditto the volcanologists measuring CO2, who probably didn't care about much else other than volcanoes.
We have sateliite data, surface measurements (NOT just Mauna Loa), and icecores, and ALL show the same increasing trend. When you have so many independant sources all in agreement, just saying -- they're ALL wrong is supremely daft. Indeed, begs the question WHY are they all wrong in the SAMe way (if they're wrong). Which unless you go for the 'it's a conspiracy' line, is a bit of a poser.
Never mind, M doesn't seem to bother her pretty little head with actually answering any questions, or retracting any inaccuracies, or admitting errors.....................
|
|