'Trees' or 'Ocean'...

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Quite a simple question really, by square mile/acre etc, which is the most efficient at absorbing atmospheric CO2?

[millennia]

Quite a simple question really, by square mile/acre etc, which is the most efficient at absorbing atmospheric CO2?

But the answer isn't simple, they never are....

As temperature increases the sea can hold less CO2 so actually expells it to the atmosphere, but increasing tempertaure and CO2 concentration cause vigourous plant growth, taking in more CO2. Conversely as the temperature drops the plants take in less CO2, but the cooling ocean absorbs more.

The amount of CO2 in the air is generally a function of the temperature of the ocean - more when the temperature is higher, so the answer to your question is completely temperature related and therefore my answer here is about as much use to you as a chocolate fireguard

Sorry.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Quite a simple question really, by square mile/acre etc, which is the most efficient at absorbing atmospheric CO2?

And grasses and shrubs are better at it than trees.

BFTP

[Devonian]

But the answer isn't simple, they never are....

As temperature increases the sea can hold less CO2 so actually expells it to the atmosphere, but increasing tempertaure and CO2 concentration cause vigourous plant growth, taking in more CO2. Conversely as the temperature drops the plants take in less CO2, but the cooling ocean absorbs more.

True, but.

If you firstly add CO₂ to the atmosphere (I assume you accept we are, and in quantity?) you'll get a temperature rise and an ocean warming and a release of CO₂ and a temperature rise and a release of CO₂...

Also, if the planet warms a lot rainforest will die back releasing not abosrbing CO₂.

But, I do think the answer is, broadly, oceans. Indeed, for plants to lock up CO₂ they have to be being 'stored' when they die, not rot and the CO₂ released again - how many places are there when coal is being made now?

The amount of CO2 in the air is generally a function of the temperature of the ocean - more when the temperature is higher, so the answer to your question is completely temperature related and therefore my answer here is about as much use to you as a chocolate fireguard

Sorry.

I think that CO₂ has risen from ~280 ppm to 380ppm is a function of our activities.

[Mr Sleet]

Don't you need the CO2 to be locked away though?

No.If it's dissolved in the ocean ( there will be an reversible equilibrium at the interface of sea and air ie molecules will swap places ) it cannot contribute to atmospheric warming.

[millennia]

True, but.

If you firstly add CO₂ to the atmosphere (I assume you accept we are, and in quantity?) you'll get a temperature rise and an ocean warming and a release of CO₂ and a temperature rise and a release of CO₂...

Also, if the planet warms a lot rainforest will die back releasing not abosrbing CO₂.

But, I do think the answer is, broadly, oceans. Indeed, for plants to lock up CO₂ they have to be being 'stored' when they die, not rot and the CO₂ released again - how many places are there when coal is being made now?

I think that CO₂ has risen from ~280 ppm to 380ppm is a function of our activities.

Yes, we couldn't possibly burn all that fossil fuel and not put CO2 into the atmosphere, you have to be on the far side of the non GW camp to deny even that - it just makes sense the CO2 has to go somewhere. However chemical assay and even ice core records show CO2 concentrations up to 500ppm in the last 200 years, I'm afraid to say the IPCC view of 290ppm stable concentration in pre industrial times is just another "modification" (made by excluding all the data points they didn't agree with) so they can make a hockey stick graph and frighten babies with it . This would put 380ppm within natural variability, which masks what we have actually put into the atmosphere ourseleves and makes it a lot harder to quantify than just deducting 290ppm.

What makes you think the rainforest will die when there is more heat and CO2? Again only computer models that have dubious data in the first place say this and there are bound to be adjustments to these in the future. If there is one thing that is definitely anthropogenic it is rainforest loss, and it ain't anything to do with CO2 or temperature....

[trevw]

Yes, we couldn't possibly burn all that fossil fuel and not put CO2 into the atmosphere, you have to be on the far side of the non GW camp to deny even that - it just makes sense the CO2 has to go somewhere. However chemical assay and even ice core records show CO2 concentrations up to 500ppm in the last 200 years, I'm afraid to say the IPCC view of 290ppm stable concentration in pre industrial times is just another "modification" (made by excluding all the data points they didn't agree with) so they can make a hockey stick graph and frighten babies with it . This would put 380ppm within natural variability, which masks what we have actually put into the atmosphere ourseleves and makes it a lot harder to quantify than just deducting 290ppm.

What makes you think the rainforest will die when there is more heat and CO2? Again only computer models that have dubious data in the first place say this and there are bound to be adjustments to these in the future. If there is one thing that is definitely anthropogenic it is rainforest loss, and it ain't anything to do with CO2 or temperature....

do you have a source for that? I have never heard anyone claim that CO2 levels were higher within the last 200 years before...

[Devonian]

do you have a source for that? I have never heard anyone claim that CO2 levels were higher within the last 200 years before...

Either Ernst Beck (debunked here) or Zbigniew Jaworowski (debunked here)?

Reading those links I can't see how the claims of either of them make any sense.

Yes, we couldn't possibly burn all that fossil fuel and not put CO2 into the atmosphere, you have to be on the far side of the non GW camp to deny even that - it just makes sense the CO2 has to go somewhere. However chemical assay and even ice core records show CO2 concentrations up to 500ppm in the last 200 years, I'm afraid to say the IPCC view of 290ppm stable concentration in pre industrial times is just another "modification" (made by excluding all the data points they didn't agree with) so they can make a hockey stick graph and frighten babies with it . This would put 380ppm within natural variability, which masks what we have actually put into the atmosphere ourseleves and makes it a lot harder to quantify than just deducting 290ppm.

What makes you think the rainforest will die when there is more heat and CO2? Again only computer models that have dubious data in the first place say this and there are bound to be adjustments to these in the future. If there is one thing that is definitely anthropogenic it is rainforest loss, and it ain't anything to do with CO2 or temperature....

If the IPCC is wrong, can you show me a graph of CO₂ concentration for the last 200 years you think is correct? And, if you can, will you please explain it's fluctuations.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Devonian

[millennia]

Either Ernst Beck (debunked here) or Zbigniew Jaworowski (debunked here)?

Reading those links I can't see how the claims of either of them make any sense.

If the IPCC is wrong, can you show me a graph of CO₂ concentration for the last 200 years you think is correct? And, if you can, will you please explain it's fluctuations.

Well I can certainly be caught citing data through a paper by Beck, but I wasn't referring to any assumptions made by him rather the actual readings taken since the 19th century regarding chemical assay values for CO2 as the background data

It's not Beck I point at but the list of names of the people that took the measurements. Chemical Assay should have an accuracy within 3%, epecically when repeated, and although this is not as accurate as modern sampling methods to just discount the whole process because it does not fit with a "stable" 290ppm pre-industrial value that suddenly increased in the 20th Centrury is a bit rich. I'll bet if I only showed the rise from 1950 to present (and the fact it follows pretty closely to the accepted values) it would be "great graph" the "proves the point". As soon as you go back before 1945 it's a load of rubbish and can't possibly be right - how typical.

Of course I can't explain it's fluctuations, that's my point!

Data points from chemical assay during these periods appear in the IPCC reports but mysteriously only the ones below 300ppm. I would have expected all the data to appear and then the accuracy could be discussed in context of all the data. How can you trust anything when it is manipulated, and if constant CO2 growth is such a slam dunk certainty why manipulate the data at all?

This is why I remain so sceptical, the science should be cut and dried and not have to be fiddled with to emphasise a point.

[Devonian]

Well I can certainly be caught citing data through a paper by Beck, but I wasn't referring to any assumptions made by him rather the actual readings taken since the 19th century regarding chemical assay values for CO2 as the background data

It's not Beck I point at but the list of names of the people that took the measurements. Chemical Assay should have an accuracy within 3%, epecically when repeated, and although this is not as accurate as modern sampling methods to just discount the whole process because it does not fit with a "stable" 290ppm pre-industrial value that suddenly increased in the 20th Centrury is a bit rich. I'll bet if I only showed the rise from 1950 to present (and the fact it follows pretty closely to the accepted values) it would be "great graph" the "proves the point". As soon as you go back before 1945 it's a load of rubbish and can't possibly be right - how typical.

Of course I can't explain it's fluctuations, that's my point!

Data points from chemical assay during these periods appear in the IPCC reports but mysteriously only the ones below 300ppm. I would have expected all the data to appear and then the accuracy could be discussed in context of all the data. How can you trust anything when it is manipulated, and if constant CO2 growth is such a slam dunk certainty why manipulate the data at all?

This is why I remain so sceptical, the science should be cut and dried and not have to be fiddled with to emphasise a point.

It's all explained in the Real Climate link I gave.

Measuring CO₂ near industrial areas and finding elevated levels of CO₂ is hardly surprising, what is surprising it to claim those reading are representative of the well mixed atmosphere, as EG Beck does. It really make no sense so to do, indeed, to use your words, it looks like a fiddle.

Otoh, the CO₂ measurements from ice cores in Antarctica are hardly likely to be much contaminate by local industrial areas, since there aren't any there

Then, if that's not enough of a problem, we have the problem that if EG Beck is right simply huge quanties of CO₂ have both been release and then vanished - and all withing a decade or so and without trace anwhere else, either in the ice cores or the isotopic record! That's not a credible idea either - again the 'why' is all in the Real Climate link.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Devonian

[millennia]

It's all explained in the Real Climate link I gave.

Measuring CO₂ near industrial areas and finding elevated levels of CO₂ is hardly surprising, what is surprising it to claim those reading are representative of the well mixed atmosphere, as EG Beck does. It really make no sense so to do, indeed, to use your words, it looks like a fiddle.

Otoh, the CO₂ measurements from ice cores in Antarctica are hardly likely to be much contaminate by local industrial areas, since there aren't any there

Then, if that's not enough of a problem, we have the problem that if EG Beck is right simply huge quanties of CO₂ have both been release and then vanished - and all withing a decade or so and without trace anwhere else, either in the ice cores or the isotopic record! That's not a credible idea either - again the 'why' is all in the Real Climate link.

Including the 1820 readings, how much heavy industry was there around then? Surely the people taking the measurements weren't so thick as to do them near to a known source of CO2 - as they were looking for CO2? Or are these far enough back to claim their methods were so inaccurate they were off by as much as 50%, and always on the high side? The 1940s peak certainly stands out and is too quick, agreed. I'd like to see what the differences were in samples around this time and if the readings are attributable to just one researcher. God knows if I'll ever find that data though

With regard to measurment sites, Mauna Loa being next to an active volcano doesn't seem the brightest location either. I've been to the Big Island and their local weather is so affected by the volcano they even have their own word - VOG - for the volcanic smog that regularly covers the island!

[millennia]

I would like to add that I don't want to get dragged off in manacles being accused of "denying" that CO2 is rising, or that humans have anything to do with it, I'm just looking to make sure we can be confident what proportion of the observed rise is anthropogenic against the general backgroud noise of natural changes. I'm also a little concerned that it appears there are very few place on Earth where it can be accurately measured according to Rabett - which means it wouldn't be uniformly contributing any affect across the planet. Also if 500ppm is measurable over urban areas then would this lead some to assume UHI is caused by CO2 over the urban area rather than land use changes?

Better be careful on that one as it may be just a step too far....

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80423181652.htm

There you go Mill. It would seem that after all the reports of methane levels falling that the haven't.

As time goes on with more and more CO2 committed to the atmosphere and CO2 sinks struggling to stand still (esp. the oceans) we can expect the 'super greenhouse gas' concentrations to be on the up and up as permafrost melts and ocean hydrates let go.By the time temps lead to the amazon giving up the ghost (along with the other 'rainforest's') then we loose the last of the major CO2 'mop up' sinks.

We know full well what the records tell us of past CO2 driven 'warm ups' and these all seem to been temperature led. Our activities have not only caused a temp rise but we have also put lots of 'locked away CO2' from fossil fuels into the mix. Pretty soon nature will start to add her own CO2 (as she always had in the past) and just in time for Indo-China to really start pushing the stuff out.

The boards have been clogged with the 'it wasn't me', 'it ain't CO2' posts........pretty soon there will be no need to quibble.

[millennia]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80423181652.htm

There you go Mill. It would seem that after all the reports of methane levels falling that the haven't.

As time goes on with more and more CO2 committed to the atmosphere and CO2 sinks struggling to stand still (esp. the oceans) we can expect the 'super greenhouse gas' concentrations to be on the up and up as permafrost melts and ocean hydrates let go.By the time temps lead to the amazon giving up the ghost (along with the other 'rainforest's') then we loose the last of the major CO2 'mop up' sinks.

We know full well what the records tell us of past CO2 driven 'warm ups' and these all seem to been temperature led. Our activities have not only caused a temp rise but we have also put lots of 'locked away CO2' from fossil fuels into the mix. Pretty soon nature will start to add her own CO2 (as she always had in the past) and just in time for Indo-China to really start pushing the stuff out.

The boards have been clogged with the 'it wasn't me', 'it ain't CO2' posts........pretty soon there will be no need to quibble.

It's the response to CO2 and fossil fuel use that's probably responsible for the methane increase:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...waste.pollution

Lat's face it , we haven't a clue what we are doing and every time we try and make things better they get a whole lot worse. Having said that I'm now starting to think methane is being over played (I would, wouldn't I :blush: ). Yes it's 23 times stronger as a greenhouse gas but it's concentration in the atmosphere is just 1800ppb against CO2s 385000ppb - so let's not start another flippin panic please. Also methane is a lot more unstable in the atmosphere and doesn't hang around anywhere near as long as CO2.