|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 19:36:21 GMT 1
In the post above I didn't give Him credit. “ [T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ”
—Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld This is a brilliant piece of amusing logic, I watched it at the time on Sky News thereafter the remarks were scoffing and one was downright nasty [not from Sky but commentators ar large]. They didn't bother to listen to it, they judged it upon their opinion of the messenger, that shows their stupidity. Sometimes it's difficult to swallow some truth, especially if from an enemy or 'perceived rival' but do check it, they may be telling the truth. Aesops fable comes to mind, The boy who cried wolf, as it says no-one would believe Him, He was chastised but what the story doesn't say is.." it was His Dad who took the loss." StuartG back off my soap box now
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 20:14:42 GMT 1
Lets say that the CO2 levels are rising and that is due to man's activities. What world leader will make/cajole all the countries of the world 'toe the line', if done forcefully it will be resisted, using diplomacy it will take too long to be of any effect. A few years ago we had some agreement, now they pull out, knowledge of human nature is all that is needed to see that's what will happen. Whatever will happen will be inevitable, the only way it going to happen is that a new [say] emission free motive power may be found, an 'Holy Grail' and whilst that's happening things are 'state normal'. Fuel has always been a 'cash cow' for sucessive governments in this country, so long in fact that, given the Brit ingenuity, we should have solved it by now. What about the 'ordinary person' all they see is people pontificating at their expense, whilst living the 'high life'. People like Al Gore [mull over the 'inconvenient truth' whilst I pick up my Nobel] , Professor Ross Garnaut [Oh, is my gold mine playing up? ] Tony Blair [with his web-site on AGW He's gone so's his web site last time I looked] down to poor old Kiteman [or was it Yellowcat always got them mixed up] pontificating on AGW whilst sitting atop some mount in Europe with his laptop and dongle, flew there. I have to quote from Animal Farm it's the only book I've ever read... " Only old Benjamin professed to remember every detail of his long life and to know that things never had been, nor ever could be much better or much worse-hunger, hardship, and disappointment being, so he said, the unalterable law of life. " StuartG fix spelin
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 20:15:48 GMT 1
I have never suggested volcanic CO2 accounts for the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have merely mentioned that the PROPORTIONS of atmospheric Co2 from the various sources are unknown and a change in the understanding of the size of ONE source necessarily affects the proportions attributed to the others.
Since volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from fossil fuel CO2 and since the sinks are apparently elastic and inadequately understood we simply cannot claim to know, with the certainty that the IPCC does, the contribution of any single source to the supposedly measured (IF it is possible to measure it accurately) total of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Every year about half of the ESTIMATED anthropogenic CO2 just disappears from the atmosphere. HOW? WHY? WHERE does it go? Why is the *proportion* that remains *constant* DESPITE the growth in the absolute quantity emissions?
I am curious about these matters. Some people, who are just as ignorant as me, claim they KNOW ENOUGH to lay down the law about it.
Pish.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 21:06:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 23:06:27 GMT 1
Volcanic Carbon Dioxide Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist " Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as sheddingmuch needed light on intensified polar springmelts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 is isotopically identical to industrially emitted CO2, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic. " www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Volcanoes%20and%20CO2.pdfcarbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/StuartG ps. "Since volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from fossil fuel CO2" it's the bit with the lumps in! www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Volcanoes%20and%20CO2.pdf
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 2, 2011 13:48:36 GMT 1
I have never suggested volcanic CO2 accounts for the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. Except you said: So, what EXACTLY are you denying, that CO2 is/has increased, or are you just trying to muddy the waters by claiming that since there is one thing that we don't know (how many submarine volcanoes), it means that we should shut up about what we think we know (human activity increases atmospheric CO2 which may have unwanted effects). NOT true. The isotopic (carbon AND oxygen) composition of CO2 differs depending on whether a volcanic product of purely mantle origin, a subduction zone process, or a biological process. Since fossil fuel carbon derives from biological processes................... That's just the whole carbon cycle thing. The question is really very straightforward -- humans have introduced a NEW process into the carbon cycle, by releasing into the atmosphere carbon that would otherwise have remained safely buried in sediments (apart from usual erosion). The amounts being released are significant compared to other natural processes like volcanism. So, shouldn't come as any surprise that such a new process might increase atmospheric levels of CO2. We KNOW that atmospheric CO2 levels have varied in the geolgical record. And we have measured increased atmospheric CO2 in the historical record that seems to be in accord with human burning of fossil fuels. Just saying we don't understand the whole of the carbon cycle doesn't remove the fact that we have introduced a new element to the carbon cycle, and that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen in accord with human activity. We don't need to understand every bit of the cycle to see that. Else we are looking at CO2 levels rising as some sort of coincidence, or saying that the new carbon source has had no effect whatsoever................ Casey says: Not true. www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20II/cht_ii_06.pdfIndeed, we would not expect it to be, given that fossil fuels produced by biological processes (which give different isotopic distributions in general for other elements as well), whereas we have some volcanic CO2 produced from the mantle (plus subduction zone stuff which is partly recycled from oceanic sediments). See this document: www3.geosc.psu.edu/~dmb53/DaveSTELLA/Carbon/c_isotope_models.pdfFigure 7.17. Fossil fuel ratio different to volcanic. HOW exactly ration in atmosphere changes over time ic complicated, given the many stages of the carbon cycle. However, refutes Caseys claim that fossil fuel and volcanic are isotopically identical. I note he doesn't give any reference for that claim, just throws it out there as if ALL the work that is out there on isotopic geochemistry of carbon just doesn't exist.............. If you went and read up about them, then you might learn something. Odd that despite claiming to be curious or not know that much, you are still confident enough to say that some people are right, and others wrong. Based on what, if you don't understand the actual science....................
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 2, 2011 14:44:56 GMT 1
So these two .pdf's are at odds? www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20II/cht_ii_06.pdf"1) The combustion of fossil fuels produces CO2 which is 14C-free, due to the high age of this material. This 14C free, or "dead" CO2 dilutes the 14C in the atmosphere. This effect is called the Suess effect (Suess, 1955). Direct observations of this Suess effect are not possible, because the 14C bomb peak, described above, completely obscures this effect at present. However, treerings from the period before AD 1950 have archived the atmospheric 14C concentration at that time, and the Suess effect can be clearly seen. 84" "96 Stable 13C/12C isotope ratios (expressed as δ13CPDB) can be used to compute the composition of atmospheric CO2. The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has δ13C . -7l when in isotopic equilibrium with marine HCO3- and CaCO3. CO2 from burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials has δ13C . -26l. δ13C reported for atmospheric CO2 was -7.489l in Dec. 1978, decreasing to -7.807l in Dec. 1988 (Keeling et al. 1989; AGU Geophys. Mono. 55, 165-236). In -300 years old Antarctic ice δ13C = -6.31 of trapped CO2 (Friedli et al. 1986; Nature 324, 237-238). If the decreasing δ13C was only caused by mixing natural CO2 with CO2 from burning of fossil fuels or plants (current -79%/-21% CO2 mix; lifetime 50-200 years; IPCC 1989), the current atmospheric CO2 δ13C should be much lower than reported. The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition was computed for its 748 GT C (GT = 1015 g) total mass and δ13C = -7.807l for 3 components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the pre-industrial atmosphere; (2) cumulative fraction remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions; (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction. The masses of component (1) and (2) were computed for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2. The result fits a lifetime of -5 (5.4) years, in agreement with 14C studies. The mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions remaining in the current atmosphere was -30 GT C or less, i.e. maximum -4%, corresponding to an atmospheric concentration of -14 ppmv. The implication of the -5 year lifetime is that -135 GT C (-18%) of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged each year. The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources. Hence for the atmospheric CO2 budget marine equilibration and degassing and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than hitherto assumed." www.co2web.info/aig.pdfand Segalstad is incorrect? StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 2, 2011 15:13:41 GMT 1
Casey was claiming that volcanic and fossil fuel CO2 were IDENTICAL and indistinguishable, which doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm not enough of an isotopic geochemistry specialist to get into the whole Segalstad residence time debate......................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 2, 2011 15:46:02 GMT 1
I might just add that comments I've found about residence time for an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere (~5 years) is NOT the same time-scale as the time it takes to remove excess carbon totally via carbonate rocks or other sinks. Hence 5 years and 1000 year figures that are tossed about and argued over.
A nice quote that seems to make sense:
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 2, 2011 17:04:54 GMT 1
Ah, ST is retreating a little from her previous denial that volcanic and fossil fuel CO2 are indistinguishable.
Casey is not the only one who has claimed this. The reason I was happy to mention it is that I have read other scientists who make the same claim (can't remember where or who). If there is dispute about this amongst scientists I feel I have permission to raise it as a reason why there can be no certainty about the proportions of various sources of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We don't know how the carbon cycle works. We don't know the sources with any accuracy (apart from the ESTIMATED anthropogenic CO2) and we don't know about the sinks.
There is merely speculation and assertion.
When CO2 is sampled widely at thousands of measuring stations throughout the world and at all altitudes and averaged in the same clever way STA thinks temperature can be averaged to give a meaningful global mean I will pay a little more heed to the supposed level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is not just the estimate of the absolute amount of industrial CO2 in the atmosphere that is relevant for the CAGW hypothesis, the proportion relative to OTHER sources is also important as IS the proportion REMAINING in the atmosphere.
I am unimpressed with the findings presented by the handful of current CO2 measuring stations which actually reject the greater number of their readings for various reasons. How scientific a form of sampling is that for goodness sake! Cherry-picking I call it.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 2, 2011 17:30:48 GMT 1
No I'm not. I'm just not getting into the whole residence time debate (different issue), until I've read a little more on it. Do try and keep up!
So, based on something you read you can't remember where by you can't remember who, you think that is grounds enough to say there is a lack of certainty? Lack of certainty over WHAT M, because I think you are confused!
Casey makes the clearly INCORRECT statement that C13/C2 ratios AREN'T different for volcanic and fossil fuel CO2. What others have to say (based on the whole complicated carbon cycle stuff), is exactly how much of CO2 increase is down to fossil fuel. It's aDIFFERENT point, and frankly a much more involved one when it comes to the isotopic geochemistry. not saying much yet on the latter doesn't mean I don't still think that Casey is telling porkies when he makes that statement. He may have got the two issues confused, I don't know, because he doesn't evendo us the courtesy of giving a reference for his assertion.
A spurious argument. The facts are that the measured C13/C12 ratio has changed appreciably since 1850, and is now lower than it has been over the last 10,000 years. What this says is that SOME new process has come into play. And what fits the bill is fossil fuels, since biological processes have a preference for the lighter carbon.
The fact that we don't know exactly how all the processes in the carbon cycle operate is kind of irrelevant, because we are looking for a new process that has come into play that can explain these new, lower ratios. And fossil fuels fits the bill, both in terms of the way the ratios go, AND the timing.
We know enough about the carbon cycle to spot that something specifically weird is going on, and you can't get around it by just appealing to ignorance.........................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 2, 2011 17:32:37 GMT 1
Q. Why is the *proportion* that remains *constant* DESPITE the growth in the absolute quantity emissions?
A. That's just the whole carbon cycle thing.
"just" ?Get back to me when you have a little more detail, STA. Because simply saying CO2 from anthropogenic sources has increased is no help at all in deciding whether it is dangerous.
You are right. The CO2 level has been higher in the past and life has thrived on it with no evidence of catastrophic tipping points. At the moment it is at just about at its lowest level ever consistent with healthy plant growth. CO2 is plant food and the more plants flourish with higher levels of CO2 (as in greenhouses where it is artificially introduced) the more primary productivity increases and the more CO2 can be taken up and recycled during photosynthesis - as well as providing us, incidentally, with a greater quantity of useful stuff like food and timber in the process.
Why this phobia about CO2 has gripped the supposedly bright is a mystery to me.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 2, 2011 17:42:03 GMT 1
After CO2 has been cycled through plants and other sinks there is absolutely no way of knowing where it came from originally. There is no good and no bad CO2. It's ALL plant food.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 2, 2011 17:50:53 GMT 1
What part of isotopic geochemistry did you fail to understand? Answers (or so it seems to me), ALL of it!
Observation: now a lot less C13 in the atmosphere than there used to be.
You can't just IGNORE that, absolute amount aside (different issue). WHY has the carbon 13/carbon 12 ratio changed?
We kniow that different processes in the carbon cycle have different preference for carbon 13 (lets leave the radioactive and short-lived carbon 14 out of it for the moment).
As I explained before, fossil fuel burning is the only process that fits the ratiom change and the timescale. Saying that after being passed through god knows what, we don't know where the carbon comes from misses the point -- ALL the carbon came from the same source originally when the earth formed, and unless you think passage through the processes of the carbon cycle can do nuclear physics (ie change carbon 13 to carbon 12), then you still have to explain WHY there isn't as much carbon 13 about nowadays as there has been for the past 10,000 years.
Burning of fossil fuel is a NEW process to add to the carbon cycle. It would skew the ratios in the correct way (volcanic wouldn't, for example), AND history fits the observed timescale. I don't see any way round that one.
I suggest you go do some basic reading on the whole isotopic thing, rather than just accept incorrect statements by geologists who don't have any relevant postgraduate qualifications..........................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 2, 2011 17:58:09 GMT 1
Plants have different preferences, don't they? Some like carbon 12, some like carbon 13.
It's complicated!
|
|