General Climate Change Discussion

[VillagePlank]

So you completely ignore my point about feedback mechanisms and overall mounting trends.

:o

No, PP; you made a statement, after you've berated others, that CO2 adds energy to the system, as if, in some hitherto unforeseen fashion, all those little carbon molecules combined with oxygen add up to make lots of little suns.

It's not true, it never has been true, and never will be true.

If you want to skew the conversation by taking it other directions that is a matter for you, and not I.

Edited December 19, 2008 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

No, PP; you made a statement, after you've berated others, that CO2 adds energy to the system, as if, in some hitherto unforeseen fashion, all those little carbon molecules combined with oxygen add up to make lots of little suns.

It's not true, it never has been true, and never will be true.

If you want to skew the conversation by taking it other directions that is a matter for you, and not I.

I stated that it is released from a stable form and added to a system where it results in adding more energy because of its properties; it traps more heat at the lower layers. This is obvious.

If you want to get all exasperated by a known fact that the IPCC have already gone on about; thats your problem.

Edited December 19, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[osmposm]

However, my point was how insignificant an extra 80 PPM is by giving an example of how small 1 PPM is.....

If you breathe in Hydrogen Cyanide gas at 4.7 ppm concentration, you are within safe/permissible exposure limits - some authorities stretch that as high as 10 ppm over an eight-hour period. By your logic, if we up that by an 'insignificant' 80 ppm (to 85 or 90 ppm) there should be no problem. In fact exposure to just 50 ppm of HCN for 30 minutes is classified as “Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH)”. Add on another 'insignificant' 80 ppm (to 165 or 190 ppm) and you are at around the 20 minute LC50 level - i.e. 50% of those breathing it at that level would be expected to be dead within 20 mins.

Now, OF COURSE I am not suggesting that CO2 is a poisonous gas in the same way as HCN. I am merely pointing out the flaw in your logic: small increases in gaseous concentrations can and do have dramatic effects.

Ossie

[VillagePlank]

This is obvious.

I find climatology far from obvious.

But the fact of the matter is CO2 does not ADD extra energy to the system - it was there all along. You can wrap it up and sing and dance, and even write clever sentences, but you cannot avoid a statement that is contrary to all the known laws of physics and use it to beat other people up with.

It's simply, not on. Not cricket, not cucumber sandwiches (you get the gist)

Edited December 19, 2008 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

I find climatology far from obvious.

But the fact of the matter is CO2 does not ADD extra energy to the system - it was there all along. You can wrap it up and sing and dance, and even write clever sentences, but you cannot avoid a statement that is contrary to all the known laws of physics and use it to beat other people up with.

It's simply, not on. Not cricket, not cucumber sandwiches (you get the gist)

Lol...you are getting a bit irritated aren't you?

If the carbon exists in a stable form in the upper lithosphere; and is then released into the atmosphere - we are transferring and releasing energy from one system to another. I can equally say that we are adding extra potential energy (because CO2 makes this available because of its properties) into a system where it was not existing before - more ppm. More...this is adding.

:lol:

[VillagePlank]

we are transferring and releasing energy from one system to another ..... this is adding.

You sure?

[PersianPaladin]

You sure?

Heck, you can call it transferring if you like. But its still adding more ppm of CO2.

[Admiral_Bobski]

PP,

VP is correct - there is no addition of energy to the system. There is an increase in the energy that is retained in the system.

When you snuggle down in your bed on a cold winter's night it is cold under the duvet at first. After a while it warms up so it's all cosy - has the duvet added heat to your bed, or has it simply trapped heat that was already floating around (radiated, at all times, from your body)?

As I understand it, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to be logarithmic, so the warming properties of CO2 are not linear - the first 100ppm of CO2 have a greater effect on temperatures than the second 100ppm. I shall have to try and find a reference to substantiate this, but I have certainly read it before.

:lol:

CB

(EDIT - for the record I have never found VP's posts condescending; merely straightforward and factual.)

Edited December 19, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Iceberg]

Your right CB, it is roughly Logarithmic, but not perfectly so. Of course this is in a perfect system without feedback and interactions.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Your right CB, it is roughly Logarithmic, but not perfectly so. Of course this is in a perfect system without feedback and interactions.

Thanks Iceberg :lol: I thought it was, but couldn't remember where I'd read it.

Although the real world is not a perfect system, the actual effect on temperatures of CO2 in and of itself is logarithmic - the temperature may not follow a logarithmic curve because of other factors (feedbacks and interactions, as you say) which may (or may not) be related to the increase in CO2.

CB

EDIT - I must avoid those winking smileys over the festive period - I don't mean to be sticking my tongue out at people!

Edited December 19, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

PP,

VP is correct - there is no addition of energy to the system. There is an increase in the energy that is retained in the system.

When you snuggle down in your bed on a cold winter's night it is cold under the duvet at first. After a while it warms up so it's all cosy - has the duvet added heat to your bed, or has it simply trapped heat that was already floating around (radiated, at all times, from your body)?

As I understand it, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to be logarithmic, so the warming properties of CO2 are not linear - the first 100ppm of CO2 have a greater effect on temperatures than the second 100ppm. I shall have to try and find a reference to substantiate this, but I have certainly read it before.

:lol:

CB

(EDIT - for the record I have never found VP's posts condescending; merely straightforward and factual.)

That example is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO₂ , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO₂ forcing data from CO₂ history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO₂ doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA)

[Admiral_Bobski]

That example is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO₂ , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO₂ forcing data from CO₂ history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO₂ doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA)

I think you've just lost me... :lol: Perhaps you weren't making your point very clearly...?

With regards the graph, if you check in on the "Leaky Integrator" thread you'll see that observed temperature can quite legitimately result from solar output as well. Correlation and corroboration are two separate things.

CB

Edited December 19, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

I think you've just lost me... :lol: Perhaps you weren't making your point very clearly...?

With regards the graph, if you check in on the "Leaky Integrator" thread you'll see that observed temperature can quite legitimately result from solar output as well. Correlation and corroboration are two separate things.

CB

Maybe.

VP appeared to disagree with my point that releasing carbon from its more stable lithosphere form into the gaseous form will add\transfer extra potential energy into the atmosphere due to the properties of CO2. Research has shown increases of temperature with increases of CO2; naturally this is not totally linear because of feedback mechanisms, sequestration via the biosphere and the oceans and other mechanisms - but the simple unavoidable fact is that there is more fuel and the result is more heat-energy in the system with increasing quantities transferred to the atmosphere.

[VillagePlank]

That example is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO₂ , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO₂ forcing data from CO₂ history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO₂ doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA)

I am feeling particularly old and stupid, now.

I cannot for the life of me connect this post with that of CO2 adding extra energy into a system.

Time for a beer, I reckon.

[PersianPaladin]

I am feeling particularly old and stupid, now.

I cannot for the life of me connect this post with that of CO2 adding extra energy into a system.

Time for a beer, I reckon.

More CO2 results in more heat-energy in the system as a consequence; thus its addition to the atmosphere from a different sphere will produce this positive correllation that the graph shows.

If you want to be PARTICULARLY anal about it; you could say that its adding is the facilitator for more heat-energy in the system - not itself being the extra energy alone.

Edited December 19, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

Maybe.

VP appeared to disagree with my point that releasing carbon from its more stable lithosphere form into the gaseous form will add\transfer extra potential energy into the atmosphere due to the properties of CO2. Research has shown increases of temperature with increases of CO2; naturally this is not totally linear because of feedback mechanisms, sequestration via the biosphere and the oceans and other mechanisms - but the simple unavoidable fact is that there is more fuel and the result is more heat-energy in the system with increasing quantities transferred to the atmosphere.

It's not what you said; you said, and I paraphrase, that CO2 will ADD more energy. Not potential energy, not transfer. And you argued on that basis.

Can I take it, then, that you retract such a claim, now, so we can all move on?

[Admiral_Bobski]

More CO2 results in more heat-energy in the system as a consequence; thus its addition to the atmosphere from a different sphere will produce this positive correllation that the graph shows.

Yes, more CO2 results in more energy in the system. However the energy doesn't actually come from the CO2 - the energy comes primarily from the Sun and the CO2 merely acts as a duvet that traps this solar energy and stops it from radiating back out into space.

CB

[PersianPaladin]

Yes, more CO2 results in more energy in the system. However the energy doesn't actually come from the CO2 - the energy comes primarily from the Sun and the CO2 merely acts as a duvet that traps this solar energy and stops it from radiating back out into space.

CB

Lol correct.

I THINK Village Plank, you misunderstood my original sentence. But yes....lets move on.

[Devonian]

To be fair VP, I don't think Dev said that it was a simple relationship between ppm and temperature. Just that a small amount of CO2(in relation to the whole atmosphere) has relatively large effect on climate.

Yup, that's what I meant.

I think Dev would actually agree with you that it's not simple therefore there has to be some kind of trust in the mathematical modelling that the experts are doing, rather than picking holes in it from an armchair. I am not saying believe everything, but you should trust that they at least are trying to understand the relationship as best they can and with there super computers they probably have a pretty good handle on it.

Ditto.

I find climatology far from obvious.

But the fact of the matter is CO2 does not ADD extra energy to the system - it was there all along. You can wrap it up and sing and dance, and even write clever sentences, but you cannot avoid a statement that is contrary to all the known laws of physics and use it to beat other people up with.

It's simply, not on. Not cricket, not cucumber sandwiches (you get the gist)

Erm, yes. There is no more energy overall because nearly all of it comes from the Sun and the Sun doesn't vary significantly (unless you're someone who thinks the warming is due to the Sun...). But, what does vary is the how/what rate the energy from the Sun leaves the Earth. In that sense it (the anthro greenhouse effect) 'adds' energy to the system. Or, rather, it delays outbound energy leaving ...hey, you know all this :lol:

edit: oopps, now i read the next page this is all cleared up....as you were.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

Chris, why do you assume that people assumed? Have you studied the carbon cycle to a high level of understanding like those who have studied the carbon cycle to a high level of understanding have? How do you know better than them?

Please explain to me how the Carbon Cycle, given the vast natural fluxes of carbon on scales of years, can but be in rough balance (rough as in it has varied by no more than about 100ppm over the last 400,000 years odd). As I've said, given the vast fluxes if the CC ever went out of balanced in a few tens of years life would either be asphyxiated or there would be no atmospheric CO2...

(from Petit et al, Nature 1999)

Your last sentence above is wrong, either way. The relative abundance of oxidizable carbon and molecular oxygen makes one of your scenarios inviable, and the other impossible due to subduction of carbonate in rocks and subsequent release of carbon dioxide by volcanos.

...in balance - until we came along and perturbed it that is.

Dev, this is the phrase I was objecting to - the assumption that there is 1. a balance, and 2. a perturbation. The ice core data merely reinforces the existence of variation, long before we could have altered the atmosphere.

Now I have stated elsewhere on this forum before that the CO₂ increase measured is undoubtably down to human sources, i.e. burnt fossil fuels.

Why it is increasing at this current rate is not understood.

NASA have recently announced the Orbiting Carbon Observatory project to attempt to discover the source and fate of atmospheric CO₂ through real-time mapping.

As you say, vast natural fluxes of Carbon dioxide exist, not just over years, but over hours on a diurnal basis, with several hundred ppm variations between dawn and noon measured in some locations.

Sources and sinks are not well understood, and there is considerable controversy over the interpretation of the data.

[Devonian]

(from Petit et al, Nature 1999)

Your last sentence above is wrong, either way. The relative abundance of oxidizable carbon and molecular oxygen makes one of your scenarios inviable, and the other impossible due to subduction of carbonate in rocks and subsequent release of carbon dioxide by volcanos.

So, there are mechanisms that stop CO2 running out of control either way! I agree, but they take time and our efforts are overwhelming them. Yes, CO2 conc will fall back, in time, perhaps a long time.

Dev, this is the phrase I was objecting to - the assumption that there is 1. a balance, and 2. a perturbation. The ice core data merely reinforces the existence of variation, long before we could have altered the atmosphere.

I think you're trying to have it both ways. Either mechanisms exist that keep CO2 in 'balance' (you listed two above) or they don't

Now I have stated elsewhere on this forum before that the CO₂ increase measured is undoubtably down to human sources, i.e. burnt fossil fuels.

Why it is increasing at this current rate is not understood.

Huh? The latter follows from the former!

NASA have recently announced the Orbiting Carbon Observatory project to attempt to discover the source and fate of atmospheric CO₂ through real-time mapping.

As you say, vast natural fluxes of Carbon dioxide exist, not just over years, but over hours on a diurnal basis, with several hundred ppm variations between dawn and noon measured in some locations.

Sources and sinks are not well understood, and there is considerable controversy over the interpretation of the data.

You're not getting away with that . A lot of people have spent a lot of time studying the carbon cycle. it is well understood. We might not understand that, but it is. Indeed, that you can say what you say about the size of sources and sinks shows we do know about them.

[Kained]

Question: The graph for CO2 is built using four different data sources.

2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data

1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica

1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica

2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data

According to this source: CO2 vs Temperature

Would the 2001 - 1958 period have a greater resolution while the ice cores have a smoothing effect on the CO2 values?

[Chris Knight]

So, there are mechanisms that stop CO2 running out of control either way! I agree, but they take time and our efforts are overwhelming them. Yes, CO2 conc will fall back, in time, perhaps a long time.

It depends upon whether you believe that either small increases in atmospheric CO₂ above an arbitrary level, say, 280ppm, are the direct cause of an increase in the earth's temperature, or that a change in earths temperature causes the background CO₂ levels to vary.

With carbon dioxide being rather soluble in water, and reactive, dissociating water to produce carbonic acid (HOCOO^-H⁺), under any single standard set of conditions of temperature, concentration of gaseous CO₂ and pressure, it would be possible to obtain an equilibrium or balance between the gas and the aqueous phase. Over the range of conditions found on our planet, and their variations over time rule out any possibility of any natural equilibrium.

Background CO₂ levels have varied without "our efforts" in the past (with coincident temperature changes) - there is no equilibrium, as long as carbon is the common currency of the biosphere, these "carbon-based lifeforms" take what they can to survive, in whichever assimilable form that suits their biochemistry and ecology.

I think you're trying to have it both ways. Either mechanisms exist that keep CO2 in 'balance' (you listed two above) or they don't

Believe me, there's no balance, just variation between physical limits, moderated by a changing, evolving biosphere. It would be tautologous to say that the biosphere keeps the atmosphere just so in order to survive, unless of course, "intelligent design" is your thing. (It would still be tautologous, but it would be possible to be absolutely serious when saying it!)

Huh? The latter follows from the former!

Sorry, this is a classic case of "lies told to children" in the Terry Pratchett sense of the phrase. Wiki has an explanation, better still, read "The Science of Discworld".

You're not getting away with that . A lot of people have spent a lot of time studying the carbon cycle. it is well understood. We might not understand that, but it is. Indeed, that you can say what you say about the size of sources and sinks shows we do know about them.

Dev, you and I know something of each other through having read our respective posts here. To say that is the same as understanding each other, is doubtful .

Question: The graph for CO2 is built using four different data sources.

2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data

1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica

1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica

2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data

According to this source: CO2 vs Temperature

Would the 2001 - 1958 period have a greater resolution while the ice cores have a smoothing effect on the CO2 values?

I think that you are probably correct regarding the "smoothing". There is opportunity for gas to diffuse through several metres of the upper layers of polar ice as it is laid down. I have not seen any fine-scale ice-CO₂ measurements correlated with annual deposition layers in the core data - perhaps it is impossible to do.

[ghrud]

If you breathe in Hydrogen Cyanide gas at 4.7 ppm concentration, you are within safe/permissible exposure limits - some authorities stretch that as high as 10 ppm over an eight-hour period. By your logic, if we up that by an 'insignificant' 80 ppm (to 85 or 90 ppm) there should be no problem. In fact exposure to just 50 ppm of HCN for 30 minutes is classified as “Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH)”. Add on another 'insignificant' 80 ppm (to 165 or 190 ppm) and you are at around the 20 minute LC50 level - i.e. 50% of those breathing it at that level would be expected to be dead within 20 mins.

Now, OF COURSE I am not suggesting that CO2 is a poisonous gas in the same way as HCN. I am merely pointing out the flaw in your logic: small increases in gaseous concentrations can and do have dramatic effects.

Ossie

I think your analogy is a bit misplaced, as I understand it these are the main green house gas offenders - water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs. Of which I hasten to add, water vapour accounts for up to 70%.

[Methuselah]

I am feeling particularly old and stupid, now.

I cannot for the life of me connect this post with that of CO2 adding extra energy into a system.

Time for a beer, I reckon.

Me neither. And PP, you and I are on the same side of the debate????

As far as I am aware mate, energy can only be created at the expense of destoying mass. E=mC^2?

I do think that the above continental quilt analogy is very apt.