From the AIRS satellite at NASA
Watch how greenness and CO2 oscillate. Carbon dioxide is the yellow stuff on the map.
As you watch the yearly cycle, hold on to the thought: “my car can change global CO2 levels”…
(My favourite part starts half way).
Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio
These three images come from the video above.
In March each year CO2 levels are rapidly rising, because the vegetation in the northern hemisphere has been dormant for months.
Tom Pagano AIRS: “Note that there is roughly a three-month lag between the state of vegetation at Earth’s surface and its effect on carbon dioxide in the middle troposphere.”
By August the green life blooms across the northern continents over summer and CO2 is pulled out of the air to fuel the growth.
..
By January green life in the southern hemisphere has pulled down the CO2 there, and CO2 is rising in the north.
NASA/JPL Atmospheric Infrared Sounder Project
..
Another page with videos, see also CO2 little helper
…”Plants release small amounts of Carbon Dioxide back into the atmosphere…” …ummm yeahhh….
Just out of curiosity — do they Release any O2 (Oxygen) back into the atmosphere?
Just askin’ — and wondering if all that Biology I studied before politicization of the school system has been re-written. Not that I’m suspicious or nuthin…
Yeah NASA — spreading the truth wherever they go (just very thinly). My Chocolate ration was increased this morning too!
240
It’s a fairly blatant fudge that most high school students would notice immediately.
It’s just amazing that plants can grow while (apparently) being net emitters of CO2 -yeah right.
You wouldn’t read about it.
133
So…you’re saying NASA scientists aren’t aware of how photosynthesis works?
Let’s just apply Occam’s razor here for a moment:
Either,
– NASA are really really dumb
or
– You haven’t understood something.
What do you think is most likely?
815
And what do you say about someone who doesn’t know what Occam’s razor means?
80
I’d say they should leave the thinking to others, wouldn’t you agree?
614
But will that stop you commenting? Or am I too optimistic?
111
So you can propose an explanation for NASA being “really really dumb” that doesn’t revolve around UN communist conspiracies?
714
Vince…its very simple, its called money.
92
…and BTW Vince, an organisation has to be pretty dumb to launch an interplanetary mission according to calculations made by some teams in metric units and others in imperial units (unsurprisingly, it never arrived).
151
Vince Whirlwind:
perhaps NASA is “really, really dumb”. Large bureaucracies frequently are, especially when it comes to threats to their continued funding.
For your enlightenment (if possible) Occam’s Razor is translated as ‘Don’t pile up hypotheses’. i.e. don’t make a series of assumptions all based on the previous one being true. When one is found to be untrue then the chain of reasoning collapses.
As an example:
1. Carbon dioxide (and water vapour) causes the Greenhouse effect.
2.The warming between 1975 and 1995 was unprecedented in history.
3. It entirely due to something Man is doing.
4. Man made CO2 is raising the level in air to ‘unprecedented’ levels.
5. This rise in CO2 is what is causing the temperature to rise
6. As the temperature rises there is a ‘feed-back’ that causes faster rises (climate sensitivity)
7. the only way to stop this temperature rise is to make conventional electricity more expensive with taxes, and give subsidies to ‘renewable energy’ to increase its use.
1 and 5 are not proven. 2,3 and 4 are wrong. 6 has been cut to ribbons so much so that even the IPCC is preparing to drop the claim.
And 7 results (at Drax power station in the UK) in the chopping down of forests to feed the boilers to produce the same amount of electricity with 20% extra CO2 emissions, and giving them a billion pounds in subsidies for doing so.
I think William of Ockham (or Occam) was a bit smarter than the average.
152
Occam’s Razor:
“The simplest of two or more competing theories is considered preferable; An explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.” Oxford Dictionary of Science.
The second part of this definition, which is rarely mentioned, gives us the rationale for dogma in science.
It is the refusal to accept the second inference of Occam’s Razor, that leads to progress and discovery.
When I was a student we were told that Ockham’s Razor was a two edged sword, that “should be be approached with caution.”
Just sayin’.
10
Graeme appears to be in full-blown denial: he rejects the entirely factual greenhouse effect, he rejects CO2 observations showing it has now grown to levels not seen for longer than our species has existed, and he rejects observations that demonstrate the rise is caused by human activity.
Either the learned, respected, professional scientists are all wrong, or, people who reject science and don’t understand it have somehow stumbled on a truth hidden from the rest of us by the most comprehensive conspiracy ever seen on this planet.
What does Occam say?
Occam says Graeme is wrong.
40
Margot,
“What does Occam say?
Occam says Graeme is wrong.”
Occam is dead. Was this from your Ouija Board, Crystal Ball, Plam Reading, Tea leaves, Chicken Gizzards…
01
It looks like you didn’t understand something.
30
No, farmerbraun, it is you who demonstrated you simply do not understand the carbon cycle.
30
Did NASA make the space shuttle work reliably Vince?
Did NASA succeed in building the X43 shuttle replacement?
Did NASA develop the X38b as was intendd?
Did NASA fulfil the X35 outline?
Did NASA succeed in realising any shuttle replacement?
Did NASA succeed in building ANY manned vehicle to get to the ISS after the shuttle retired…long after it was meant to, for lack of a replacement?
Does NASA have anything to get crews to and from the ISS…apart from ideas, and Russian hire cabs?
Has NASA yet fulfilled ANY of its manned program pledges and objectives since 1980?
Is NASA the same organisation that by that name excelled at manned spaceflight and put men on the moon?
Dos it consist of the same people?
Do they exhibit the same culture as that earlier NASA?
Does it do the same job?
Do you still maintain we should take everything any and every one of its employees say on trust?
192
Ace. I sniff an iconoclastic tendency? I used to treasure a belief that we’d hang onto the coat tails of that old NASA, which would put us on Mars. Now, it appears that the organisation is populated by atmospheric scientists and modelers like Dr. Peter H Hildebrand, Chief, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which ensures that it has become increasingly absorbed by its own CO2.
I know your views on the Shuttle although I can’t help but admire a engine with a low pressure pump operating at 16,000psi and a high pressure pump at 24,000psi, the whole ensemble cooled by the liquid propellant. (H2 / O2). That there wasn’t a catastrophic main engine failure was testament to some impressive engineering and quality control. Going straight up at the speed of sound must be blerdy fantastic. There’s no question though, one should doff one’s cap to the folk who had the courage to ride it to orbit.
160
Manfred…the technology both you and I admire was developed in the decades before the shuttle was actually assembled and flown. We could actually have a water-shed in the shuttle “moment”: Pre-Shuttle NASA and Post-Shuttle NASA…the 30 years of its operation reflecting the interzone period of NASA’s decline.
Dont forget, the shuttle DID have a catastrophic failure of its SRB…due to a very feeble reason…reflecting the chaotic and flawed management culture that NASA had declined into. Dont forget also the years of absurdity surrounding the dissapearing thermal insulation…ultimately resulting in a second catastrophic failure. The people running the thing were midgets clutching onto the shouldrs of the giants who designd it. Though of course, thos giants wre in private industry anyhow (Rockwell) as are those engineers who are now developing the USAs best hope in mannd spaceflight, the Dragon vehicle.
The biggst contrast is betwn the X15 and that pathetic ramjet powered surf-board they flew once with massive hoopla, like wow! 1958 they were routinely operating a piloted re-usable spaceplane. 2008 they are full of boast over the three minute flight of a pilotless toy. Even that had to b rocket boosted and abandoned to crash into the ocean.
Iconaclast I am, xactly. But in respct of NASA its more resentmnt of a once beautiful woman who has stuffd herself with pies, sat out in the sun too long, abandoned all exrcise and turned into a fetid old hag. I grew up with th assumption that the colonisation of the solar system was a foregone certainty. I som time ago dcidd that nothing of th kind will ever happen out of this civilisation. J.G.Ballard I now realise was right. The Space Age ended with Apollo. The rest is just party tricks.
Actually, it really all ended before Apollo, with the nuclear test ban treaty and th end of project Orion.
But NASA, like very govt organisation, has endd up becoming about jobs-for-the-boys-(and-girls). Theres more money in a cycle of aborted projcts than in one succsful one. and of course, private contractors are the engine of that particular gravy-train.
151
Speaking of pilotless vehicles, UAV’s, Drones, etc, it’s almost hard to believe that Australia was one of the forerunners of this technology with the Jindivik.
Designed in 1948, and flying pilotless for the first time in 1952, the RAAF had almost 350 of them in all, with variants also sold on to the UK, and even the US, making it one of the most successfully exported Australian designed aircraft. The RAAF (and WRE) flew them until the late 1990’s in fact.
Pretty impressive too, considering the times.
Jindivik
Jindivik Image
Tony.
80
And the main question.. has NASA done ANYTHING constructive, linked to aerospace, since the 1980’s ???
111
I ve put my overall opinion but obviously in broad strokes. They obviously have done things in the er…wings (quite literally with boundary layer research, asymetric and flexing aerofoils, etc) and yes, there have been very nice unmanned space missions, my favourite being Gallileo-Cassini. Then all the Earth obsrvation sattlits and spac telscopes. However, I think the big picture is rflcted in those big projects…the ones that never come to fruition. Vast amounts of money are swallowed up in these things. Do they really believe themslves they will realise thse schems when they st out to get the funding? I dont think so. Its like the long story of the Pentagon and CIA funding research into psychic warfare and espionage. Remote viewing, killing goats by staring at them. The whole point of such programmes is to give nice jobs to the people running them. Th same of course with lots of other weapons projects.
Of course, in defence, the scale of expenditure is far greater, but projects often do come to fruition. And as far as budget goes, NASA has only twice that of the BBC. So from time to time I use NASA as a positive example of money much better spent than on the blasted broadcasting organisation.
80
Ace,
add to your list the FACT that NASA claims that after 5, yes FIVE Venus missions below the clouds they CLAIM that their IR flux experiment FAILED EVERY TIME below the clouds!!!!
Of course others claim it did NOT fail and the data shows that there is NO “super greenhouse” effect in the lower atmosphere, BUT, you pays your money and you takes your chances!!! 8>)
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
70
…A KorrctMeslf NOTICE:
I meant Cassini-Huygens
Something about going to the gas giants mad me think of Galileo…I wonder why?
00
Kuhnkat is hilarious:
His beliefs about Venus are based on some eastern religion, apparently, as translated by a crank:
31
Ahh yes, now we have a Margot polluting the dialogue.
Please point out where I have referenced anything but the FACT about the claimed failure of the same experiment on FIVE NASA missions and the SULFUR chemistry that Ackerman wrote about??
By the way, displaying your ignorance about non-mainstream science is funny!! Velikovski was a friend of Einstein who took the time to critique his hypothesis. Ackerman follows much of Velikovski and adds years of actual Observations to the mix!! But hey, why let possible FACTS get in the way when you would rather SMEAR someone??
My belief is that consensus science explains Venus and many other features of our Solar System and universe in provably false ways.
Is your belief FAITH BASED in that you KNOW they are correct??
cementafriend was fairly sure that Ackerman got the Sulfur cycle wrong. What I have been able to find appears to show current scientists coming up with many of the same processes that Ackerman proposed. Interestingly enough, Ackerman was able to propose those processes because he accepted the observations rather than disbelieving them because they did not match the CONSENSUS model of a super greenhouse!!
Did he get some of it wrong?? Well, I am waiting for the observations to come in supporting or knocking down his proposals. So far he is doing better than NASA and the rest except where they agree of course!! No one is perfect and the data is NOT totally reliable so the odds are that he did miss on some issues.
Yeah, accepting actual observations will usually trump poor models.
10
Kuhnkat, the Russians landed a craft on Venus at least once but I think it was three times. There are some (b&W) pictures of surfaces (I have/had copies on the drive of my collapsed computer maybe someone can do a search on the internet). I think some (US) IT expert obtained the data signals and has determined some color of the atmosphere which is yellow showing the nature of the light getting to the surface. As you say there is no Greenhouse effect on Venus. The clouds are likely liquid and solid CO2 (it is nonsense to say they are liquid SO2) which reflect most of the radiation coming from sun. There are high winds over 250 km/hr caused by surface temperature differences (Venus rotates slowly). The winds spread heat around the Venus globe by convection.
Sorry if I am covering things you already know.
20
Here is the web site of the images http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
On another website I note that the first Russian probe to land was on the night side. Surface temperature was about 240C and atmospheric pressure was 93 atm.
If the surface temperature on the “sunny” side is about 450C as assumed by the article posted by KuhnKat, then it indicates some large temperature differences, double or more than those on earth. Venus has a lapse rate of a little over 10C/km. When the temperature gets below 0C there is still a lot of pressure hence the likelyhood of liquid & solid CO2
00
cementafriend,
yes, I know a little about the Russian landings (plural).
The Russians determined that the clouds reflected at least 60% of the energy flux coming up from the surface!! Now along with that we have the FACT that the cloud tops are about -13c and goes up from there.
“52.5 kilometers above the Venusian surface turns out to be in the middle of the Venusian cloud blanket which is made up largely of sulfuric acid droplets. (The cloud bottoms are estimated to be 30 to 35 km above the surface and the tops are estimated to be from 60 to 75 km above the Venusian surface.) This upper altitude limit is perhaps a fuzzy estimate. The cloud tops temperature has been reported to be 260 K (-13 degrees C or 9 degrees F). According to the temperature profile above (green line) this temperature corresponds to an altitude of 58 km (36 miles) for the cloud tops. (For stratus clouds there will be thermal equilibrium between the atmosphere and the cloud tops.)”
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
No way is there going to be even liquid CO2 in those clouds with that much heat. Further down under the pressure?? Sure. Under the coulds will be more like an ocean of CO2.
The abstract from the Russians paper:
“ABSTRACT The thermal infrared emission of Venus measured by Venera-9 and Venera-10 is analyzed. The emission of the night side corresponds to a brightness temperature of 244 K. The brightest temperature of the day side is 233-234 K. The extent of the upper layer of clouds, in which the thermal emission is formed, is 4-6 km. The altitude of the emitting layer above the surface of the planet (64-67 km) is determined from the brightness temperature and the existing models of the atmosphere of Venus. In some cases, correlation is noted between the inhomogeneity and the details of the ultraviolet image. The day side temperatures strangely coincide with the freezing point of sulfuric acid at a concentration of 66-77%.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4660415_Infrared_radiation_of_Venusian_clouds
Can’t argue the Sulfur cycle as I am not good enough at chemistry BUT I don’t think the guy who wrote about it is quite the crank you think he is.
The main issue was the energy flux between the ground and the clouds where NASA claims their instrument FAILED on all 5 missions rather than accept the readings!! Those are simple facts regardless what the rest of the paper claims.
You mention convection. That is an ASSUMPTION. A reasonable one, BUT, not supported by the sparse data that we have. There is little atmospheric movement close to the surface. The upper winds are completely unexplained by any conventional theories. Either the Electric Universe types sre right or Miles Mathis has this one.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/atmosphere.html
What I would suggest is that there is little change in temp and there fore no change in pressure to drive convection at the surface. Due to the pressure you have basically a liquid that is all the temp of the surface which doesn’t vary a lot between day and night. Very little convection. Hot spots on the surface would be the only drivers and they would be relatively fixed in location and not nearly large enough to drive the winds.
00
Oh and cementafriend, yuh better double check that nightside surface temp. Everything I have ever read says this:
http://www.universetoday.com/14306/temperature-of-venus/
00
KuhnKat, not a good way to communicate
Look at this for information on the atmosphere
http://mentallandscape.com/V_Lavochkin1.htm
and this http://mentallandscape.com/V_Venera11.htm there are more here http://mentallandscape.com/V_Venus.htm
The measured SO2 content in the atmosphere of 130ppm and the H2O content of 100ppm rule out drops of H2SO4. The atmospheric make-up of 97% CO2 and 2.5% N2 plus a few trace gases does not leave room for any other cloud formation to CO2.
I can only go by the information provided and make an assessment on that. There is no evidence of sulfur on the surface or in the atmosphere. There seems to be no evidence of continued volcanic activity. Temperatures of the surface are in accord with the atmospheric pressure and some radiation from the sun. Because CO2 absorbs little or no direct radiation from the sun (and similarly from the hot surface of Venus) the “day” and “night” temperatures of the surface have to be different just like our moon. I think a Venus “day rotation” is 243 of our days. That is a long time for the “night” side to cool and the “sunny” side to warm.
00
KuhnKat, a little info on CO2 at 1 atm pressure CO2 sublimes from solid to gas at 194.5K but it is a liquid at 6 atm and 220K, 12.8 atm and 240K, 24.2 atm and 260K, 32atm and 270K 67.1 atm and 300K. It would appear that on the “night side that liquid CO2 can form high up in the atmosphere as you indicate.
“Climate Scientists” or physicists have no Chemical Engineering knowledge so they are unlikely to make sound conclusions or assumptions from data.
00
Here is the link for the Euro ESA Venus Express mission:
http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/39432-results-from-venus-express/
Their VIRTIS instrument measured the southern hemisphere and returned 422-442c for temp.
Venera 4, according to your link and others, probably did not reach the surface until after battery exhaustion, so, the ~240c temp is most likely not surface.
With the next graph they show their evidence for CO, OCS, and H2O below the clouds. I wouldn’t think H2O would be stable there, but, they claim between 30-40km altitude so I guess I go with the observations. The carbonyl sulfide doesn’t hurt Ackerman.
http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/42249-virtis-observations-of-venus-lower-atmosphere/
Here is a link covering the sulphur cycle:
http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/48610-zhang-x-et-al-2010/
Here they claim the clouds are primarily sulphuric acid droplets:
http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/41895-piccioni-g-et-al-2007/
Here they again talk about sulphuric droplets making clouds and the super rotation being the upper cloud level.
http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/41894-markiewicz-w-j-et-al-2007/
It would seem a lot of Ackerman’s claims are happening if not in the volume he predicts, except for the sulfur jets from the surface. Those are still unsupported by direct evidence and may not exist. Without them there would not be the magnitude of sulfur he is claiming and we have no driver for the super-rotation. Something is certainly reflecting and CO2 simply does not cover the bandwidth at the temp and pressures of the cloud layers. Even with the sulfur we are still missing the UV absorber(s).
00
KuhnKat, lets leave it there. We all do not know. I note that the Zhang paper (re S cycle) mentions a model (based on guesses?) but it does not make sense if there is only 130ppm SO2 and 100 ppm of H2O. Many different chemical reactions can occur at high temperature and high pressure. The closest I have seen to such conditions is high pressure high temperature leaching of Scheelite with caustic soda. I think temperatures were around 200C and pressure in the autoclaves about 8 bar.
00
cementafriend,
I think it finally sunk in where we may be talking past each other. You are pointing to the very low level of SO2. It is about .015%. Pretty small. The sulfuric acid is NOT a part of this although Ackerman and now others see a combined chemistry happening that would include it.
http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Atmosphere+of+Venus
See ya around.
00
Dang!!
Now I find the paper with measurements.
http://www.planetaryprobe.eu/IPPW7/proceedings/IPPW7%20Proceedings/Papers/Session4/p454.pdf
00
What a strange argument, Ace – how many successful shuttle launches (etc…) has the carbon-cycle-unaware “farmerbraun” been responsible for?
31
I don’t think NASA are all that dumb, just corrupted by funding, and trying to sell propaganda to the dim-wits of society.. seems they have succeeded in your case..
funding -> propaganda -> votes for the pollies pushing the meme -> more funding
see, very simple one.
31
Right, so either it’s an amazing conspiracy that encompasses all the world’s scientists as well as all the world’s glaciers and ice sheets, all the world’s oceans.
Or, alternatively, “farmerbraun” has no idea.
What does Occam say?
———————————-
Occam says you really want us to say the word “Conspiracy”. Andy is talking about a systematic thing (you’ve heard of “supply and demand”), you’re the one invoking conspiracies. – Jo
32
Plants emit CO2 at night.
They emit oxygen in daytime.
They burn some oxygen to stay alive, just like us – its just in daytime, their oxygen burn is swamped by their production of oxygen through photosynthesis.
50
Will, Graeme, Ace, et al,
Calm down chaps. I reckon you might have missed the point while leaping out of the blocks to cry ‘conspiracy’ and ‘cock up’; the video is in fact pointing out (during one small remark) that deciduous plants emit CO2 when their leaves fall and decompose during autumn, there’s no attempt by NASA to brain wash little boys and girls that everything they’ve heard in Biology was a denier’s lie.
Even I got the point, and I am in the pocket of eevil big oil.
10
How did they remove the anthropogenic portion of CO2? Clever, it must have a distinct signature which AIRS can distinguish.:-) A smile I hope!
Thanks Jo, a cracking little video.
170
Good Question G.
“AIRS isn’t able to measure CO2 near the surface, where the carbon sources and sinks are located,… ”
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Measuring_CO2_from_Space/History_CO2_Measurements/
and
“AIRS detects carbon dioxide in the middle troposphere.” From the piccy half way down on the right.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2012-06-29-co2-and-vegetation/
70
The simply removed the long term increase to focus on the seasonal changes!
No tin foil hat required 🙂
40
That does make sense Rob. Thankyou.
40
Hang on. The long term increase is not ALL man made.
111
(sigh)
Those who pretend observations are not real are insane.
Those who fail to perform arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.
There is no year in the last 50 years where nature was a net emitter of CO2 into the air.
Based on the observational data,
8 - 4 > 0, it’s that easy.22
Andrew McRae,
What does it feel like to parrot the company line. Did you actually study any of this or are just repeating what you read??
For instance, if you have a gas that is soluble in water it can be emitted at a certain temperature depending on the concentration in the air. If the concentration in the air is raised there will be less gas emitted from the water.
Your and the Alarmists oversimplified math just adding and subtracting gross amouynts doesn’t even START to account for all the chemistry and physics gfoing on here on our planet.
21
Keep thinking, maybe you’ll get there eventually. You should also check how retailers can detect the rate of shoplifting without watching where all the stock is 24/7. If thinking gets too difficult you could just try insulting me again, as that is quite a popular substitute for engaging with the reality.
11
Sorry Andrew but you are missing a critical detail! The 750 GT of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t exist in isolation but only represents about 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean system with another 37000 GT dissolved in the ocean. With the rapid turnover of CO2 in the atmophere (5-10 years) humans would need 4750 years to double the total CO2 in the system.
If humans produce 8GT each year with 20% of that lost to the ocean every remaining year then the net result is that after ten years the ACO2 left in the atmosphere is less than the total increase and therefor nature must have been a net emitter of CO2 into the atmosphere.
This is all well established physics (Henry’s law) that governs the partial pressure between solution and atmospheric compartments.
What the data show is that nature is a net emitter for about 6 months and a net absorber for another 6 months. Humans only cause a net increase in CO2 for a couple of days/weeks a year at the turning points.
21
Andrew
OK lets assume you are 100% correct.
Your point agrees with my statement at #3.1.1.3.2 and sophocles below that.
If you are correct then nature is a stable net sink and it is sinking Co2 so fast that natural variation never allows it to be a source. Are you able to calculate how fast CO2 would be falling without human intervention to prevent the obvious catastrophy? You would be able to then predict the date that nature would complete it’s suicide without man made CO2.
10
During the recovery from the LIA it must have been a CO2 source not a sink. It’s difficult to know at what point during the 20th century that nature switched from source to sink because the accurate readings of background levels only go back to 1960.
Even back then it was absorbing 2Gt/y.
Based on that figure, as a very rough guess, without our entirely beneficial human intervention nature would at present be a net source of CO2 anyway but the ocean’s net outgassing rate might be only 2Gt/y +/- 1Gt/y. The air would still be accumulating CO2 but at half or 1/3rd the current rate.
You ask a hypothetical question, there’s one hypothetical answer.
10
There’s something dreadfully wrong with the animation. The uptake of CO2 that starts in NH Spring would start further south first and go north as the temperatures increase, it’s in reverse on the animation. The overall (massive) size of the CO2 that sits over Russia appears to be correct judging by other graphics I’ve seen.
70
Spence, the second video shows a better idea of the concentration of CO2 in northern areas. There simply isn’t a big source even with the methane hydrates venting from the arctic ocean. A lot of it blows in from lower latitudes. Further north the trees exhaust the level they show more quickly as lower latitudes have the oceans replenishing the CO2 more quickly.
60
.
KuhnKat I watched it three times and note that the CO2 lingers longer over land. It seems pretty obvious that the CO2 goes into the oceans not the flora. The flora just benifits from it being around.
From the Aug 19 piccy above it is clear that it blows over the land and sinks into the sea.
Take a look at Mar 19 to May 20 in the Southern hemisphere. It is all sucked into the sea. The only bit that remains is over the only land.
The fact that the AIRS satellite can measure it at all shows that it radiates well out to space.
60
Siliggy,
“KuhnKat I watched it three times and note that the CO2 lingers longer over land. It seems pretty obvious that the CO2 goes into the oceans not the flora. The flora just benifits from it being around.”
Amazing, you have started a new section of science. Plant life BENEFITS from CO2 but does not absorb it, breaking down the CO2 releasing oxygen and incorporating the Carbon into itself.
Can you explain to me where plants get the carbon that makes up most of the solid or relatively solid portions if they do not USE the CO2 they absorb??
30
KuhnKat Yes the land flora obviously does absorb some CO2. To see I knew that already you only need to go back to the Arnie post and see the challenge I put foward. You have missed the point. The point is that the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs in the oceans AFTER Henry’s law sucks the CO2 into the cold water. The video shows this to be happening.
Perhaps if I had said…
“It seems pretty obvious that the” bulk of the “CO2 goes into the oceans not the flora.”
and “It is” nearly “all sucked into the sea”
Ok I did word it badly but can you see this happening from in video? I can.
20
Siliggy,
Yes, the ocean both emits and absorbs the lions share of the CO2 on earth, BUT, we cannot underestimate the land flora. Take a look at the Midwest and across Siberia in the second picture above. The CO2 levels are no longer elevated in those areas AWAY from the ocean, with elevated areas between the Midwest and the ocean!!
I don’t believe in teleconnections, just basic physics.
40
At the same but opposite latitude south there is a wider band of not elevated CO2 in all the photos. Wonder if lakes and snow help in the areas you mention.
10
The Critical part you guys are missing is rain systems. Water droplets with their massive surface area to volume absorb the CO2 and transport it back to the surface where it is put to use by the various organisms. the vertical air currents due to convection and precipitation also help with the atmospheric mixing.
10
Siliggy,
“Take a look at Mar 19 to May 20 in the Southern hemisphere. It is all sucked into the sea. The only bit that remains is over the only land.
The fact that the AIRS satellite can measure it at all shows that it radiates well out to space.”
First, you are allowing your imagination to run away with you. The colors on the video are set to a threshold of CO2 level. There is ALWAYS about 350PPM (check the charters specs for exact numbers) in the atmosphere even when it shows clear.
Second, yes IR radiates really far out into space cause there is little to stop it from the stratosphere up. Of course, most of the mass of the atmosphere along with the CO2 is below the tropopause. Still, winds do a reasonable job of distributing the CO2 and mixing it.
We can see that it isn’t fast enough for a perfect mix though!! 8>)
50
Yes KuhnKat Radio Electronics is my income. I spent a considerable part of my life building calibrating and refining the design of optical fibre pyrometers under some some very clever physicists and engineers(Also building and designing the calibration equipment). The fact that the yellow shows a threshold has not been missed. You are correct all the yellow that represents an amount above the threshold is sucked into the sea. Not all the CO2 as my bad wording seems to say.
However I do wonder how exactly they separated the wavelengths of CO2 from other stuff. The point about it radiating out into space is in contradiction to the “trapping” claim in the video and from alarmists generally. The point being that CO2 re-radiates isotropically not just down.
40
Siliggy,
YOU wonder how they separate the stuff?? So do others. Water Vapor overlaps the CO2 bandwidths!!!
Don’t spend a lot of time on the trapping and isotropic. The old Trenberth comics and other pictures make it look like the IPCC types believe IR reflects, but, at this point none of them argue that. They KNOW what the physics says. It is a mark of the newbie warmer if they actually try to argue reflection rather than absorption and isotropic emission.
Heck, even reflection won’t give the “trapping” they need. Just look at the possible angles that simply bend toward space instead of heading back down!!
With isotropic emission the earth is the bottom of a cone from the point molecule. Less than half of the IR heads back to earth under ANY real scenario and that is if the point is close to the surface. The higher the less chance of it getting back to the earth.
50
Yes unlike me, very well worded.
Even some of what is radiated down will be re-absorbed before getting down and then most of what is re-radiated from there will head away from the surface for the reason you have already spelled out so well.
20
Don’t look at the overlap between water vapour and methane as it will make you puke in disgust. The stupid GHG equivalency measurements were performed in a dry atmosphere and they never measure water vapour to boot! Disgusting pseudoscience.
20
Siliggy,
I was guessing that they would use one of the minor bands of CO2 that had less “interference.” At least the OCO measurement uses the 1.61um and 2.06um bands. Here is a paper on it:
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/41418/1/08-0693.pdf
20
Thanks for the link Kuhnkat. Will get curious and check it out sooner or later.
00
“It seems pretty obvious that the CO2 goes into the oceans not the flora. The flora just benefits from it being around.”
There is a lot of flora in the oceans, as well as the water absorbing CO2.
30
AndyG55 Would the water not absorb it first? After the water absorbs it then the flora in the water can get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
See comment #5 here and consider that photosynthesis is endothermic so it helps Henry’s law to feed itself.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/ocean-plankton-suck-up-twice-the-carbon-we-thought-they-did/
30
Not sure of the process, but many ocean plants are very close to the surface to get the sunlight, but I suppose that most of the CO2 that algae etc use must be absorbed in the water first, except where bubbles of air reach the plants.
Would be interesting to know the actual process.
40
.
You guys are having a “how many angels dance on the head of a pin” type discussion, based more on semantics than any real differing point of view.
1) – Yes, most of the CO2 ends up in the ocean, BUT it doesn’t stay there. If it did it would very soon max out the amount dictated by Henry’s Law and no more would be dissolved.
2) – The very same thing happens to much of the dissolved CO2 in the oceans, as happens to it on land. It is taken up and used by green plants, releasing oxygen in the process.
3) – Between 50 and 85% of ALL the world’s O2 comes from one single microscopic ocean plant – phytoplankton. Much of the rest of the world supply comes from other green ocean plants. The old Greenpeace advertising furphy that “the Amazon is the lungs of the planet”, is just that – a furphy.
.
So, you see, you are BOTH right. Yes, most if does end up the oceans, and yes, most of it is converted back to carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis – it just happens mostly in the oceans, rather than via land-based plants, is all.
70
Give or take the odd subducting undersea limnic lake and a whole lot of dead sea life that sinks to the bottom and stays there.
20
Where you have lots of flora you also have lots of fauna feeding
on the flora. A lot of the fauna makes carbonate shells (CaCO3) and skeletal
structures out of the CO2, eg, the foraminifera and other similar little animals
(check Wikipedia). When they die, these shells and frameworks fall to the sea
floor and are eventually crushed and pressed into limestones and chalks.
Have a look around at the huge(!) quantity of limestone and chalks in the world.
That is where the very high levels of CO2 in past eras has disappeared into, and
where CO2 is still disappearing into. There is a possibility that life on this planet
has a distinct life span: all life could die off sometime in the future, not because
there is too much CO2, but because too much CO2 is trapped into and locked up
in materials which take far too long to break down. This process—absorbing
CO2into Calcium Carbonate and depositing it, crushing it and then uplifting it as
limestone and chalk or sucking it down into the mantle—is continuous and
on-going.
Personally, I don’t think any extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem. Ocean life
will just soak it up and lock it up. It’s the locking up which could become a real
problem in a few billion years, or less, unless the atmosphere is suitably refreshed
by CO2 rich comets …
The fact that atmospheric CO2 is still way below 1000ppm during most of the
Holocene interstadial, so far, suggests these little critters have been way too
successful.
160
sophocles
Wish I could give you twenty thumbs up!
I suspect the eugenics mob know this and are living in the hope that short term variation during the next little ice age will get rid of us. May your comets get here first.
30
.
Agree entirely, Sophocles.
But since we’re discussing things so far above my pay scale, it’s not an opinion that counts for anything.
Yes, the carbonation process would appear to lock up carbon and release oxygen, so we appear to be heading for an O2 rich, CO2 poor environment, somewhere a few millennia down the track.
However, given the time scale involved, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. Maybe fungi will become the dominant flora, and fauna, including us, will adapt to a food chain that starts with mushrooms.
20
Sliggy,
We don’t need to rely on comets.
Just set fire to a few suitable coal seams.
Once they are going, stopping them is a bitch.
The Chinese have spent the last twenty years trying to extinguish one.
They reckon they will have it under control in another eight years, give or take.
30
Hi Memoryvault. You are missing the important aspect of henry’s law, ie the fact that ocean contains 98% of the worlds (non carbonate) CO2, ie about 37500GT. It would take another 4000years to double the CO2 in the system because henrys law means that the ratio between the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere are constant for any temp of the ocean. Basically when we emit CO2 to the atmosphere 98% of it must be absorbed by the ocean as a consequence of henry’s law.
The only way to increase the atmospheric component significantly is to warm the ocean which would say change the ratio from 50:1 to 49:1 and result in a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2( ie what we have seen)
Where it gets interesting is that the Massive ocean is very poorly mixed with the atmosphere only interacting with a small portion of the ocean at any one time. the 800 year time lag between temp and CO2 is the time it takes for the deep oceans to mix through (or at least the THC portion)
20
MV
That may not be enough because these may dwarf all human CO2 already.
” Jharia’s is just one of thousands of coal seam fires burning across the globe.”
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8539564
00
Hi MV,
I wasn’t arguing. I don’t know enough about that area of biology to argue.
You really should learn to tell the difference between an argument and a discussion. 🙂
10
Andy,
I specifically used the word “discussion” as it was obvious you two weren’t arguing.
I was simply trying to point that you were going in circles since you were both right.
CO2 being absorbed by plants via photosynthesis and CO2 being absorbed by the oceans were not mutually exclusive.
20
The seasonal influence is lesser, the closer you get to the equator, for obvious reasons.
55
.
For another obvious effect try leaving your mouse cursor over Kyrgyzstan/XinJiang area while you watch the video again.
Then apply Occam’s razor to this simple theory.
The Co2 does not change much there annually due to it being a long way from the ocean.
72
WillR. Plants respire 24 hours a day. Respiration produces CO2.
Plants photosynthesize during daylight hours. This creates O2, amongst other things.
60
Listen to the video very carefully and notice they re-state (to emphasize) CO2 … je’ sayin’. I did my time in the sciences. I do know the carbon cycle…
100
Plants produce a small amount of CO2, primarily at night, when there is no sunlight to drive photosynthesis.
Net is big negative.
If plants didn’t produce the oxygen we breathe breaking CO2…
90
Good one.
50
The obvious point for me was, Oz has FA to do with anything in the NH, let alone in whole globe.
110
Plants produce just a ‘little bit’ of CO2 (at night when they’re not seen) and inconvenient humans (pan to picture of multiple belching smokestacks) produce ‘a lot’ of CO2…..
More mind rinsing drivel from the spin meisters at NASA, where people like: Dr. Peter H Hildebrand, Chief , Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), now drive the propaganda machine forward since the retirement of James E. Hansen. His bio about says it all.
The allusion to Gaia of course provides a suitable mythical backdrop in the form a breathing planet for this absurd though poetically colourful vignette. Revealingly, it also unmasks the Green influence.
80
They claim they remove the anthropogenic CO2 toi clarify what is happening!!!
Ummm, how does removing 4% of the flux, at most, clarify anything?!?!?!
Blatant propaganda!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
80
And note the obligatory back lit STEAM! 🙂
They had to get their propaganda in .
111
Let me see if I’ve got this correct?
More CO2 in the atmosphere causes the deserts to shrink and it allows us to grow more food on less land with less water.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is doing just about all it can to affect temperatures and will raise temps a little over a degree if we double its atmospheric concentration, maybe.
Hmm… why don’t we give tax breaks and bounties to those companies that emit the most CO2 in the atmosphere? After all, they have helped to reverse desertification and are reducing world hunger all by running profitable businesses which provide jobs and contribute to GDP!
291
Quite agree Eddy, the deserts in my area (Great Sandy) are doing wonderfully at the moment. I guess it also helps seagrass meadows in tropical oceans, however the CSIRO’s latest fairy tale must be scaring the hell out of our dugong.
80
Eddy, your assertion as to sensitivity is not backed by the research. All estimates seem to agree on a sensitivity of close to 3 degrees, not 1. Your 1 degree appears to be a personal and irrational belief.
Lindzen’s low sensitivity models have been completely debunked by the temperature record.
627
” All estimates seem to agree on a sensitivity . . .” oh really.?
So leaving aside mere estimates. who actually KNOWS what the figure for sensitivity is in reality?
100
The modellers know, because they set the value. It is one of the “fiddle factors” that they “adjust” to get the model output to approximate reality.
40
Well, we can believe the professionals, or we can believe random people on blogs.
That isn’t much of a tough choice in my book.
—————————
REPLY: Keep farming your brain out to the establishment. Some of us pick and choose depending on what they say rather than whether they hold a paid position. – Jo
31
Margot,
“Well, we can believe the professionals, or we can believe random people on blogs.”
Why do we have to BELIEVE anyone??
I prefer to search for theories that actually FOLLOW the facts and make predictions that come true. All the rest is a religion that has no promise of a better afterlife.
20
And VW, your level of certainty is where exactly?
So, care to venture why ECS value has inconveniently declined over the years and indeed continues downward, given the certitude of unscientific, belief bubble you live in?
Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 4, 785-852, 2013
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/785/2013/
doi:10.5194/esdd-4-785-2013
A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series
R. B. Skeie1, T. Berntsen1,2, M. Aldrin3, M. Holden3, and G. Myhre1
90
1/ Those sensitivity measurements rely on water vapour positive feedback that the observations show does not exist.
2/You can calculate actual sensitivity from the observed 5% decrease in cloud cover in the 90s. This is a forcing of 0.9W/m2 and caused 0.3degC of warming (75% of the total warming in the satellite period I might add)
From this you clearly get a climate sensitivity of 0.333 deg/W/m2
The 3.7W/m2 forcing from CO2 would therefor result in 1.2deg of warming, virtually neutral feedback.
Yet I’m guessing you will still prefer to believe the holy computer models of the profits (not a typo) than pay attention to hard empirical data!
110
Thats rubbish, 3 is fanciful and only exists in the models. It requires a net loop gain 0f about 0.7 and a positive fb loop gain of 0.95, for all practical intent impossible.
Finally an estimate of sensitivity can be done on the evidence, consider the rise of 120 ppm and 0.7 degrees since the preindustrial period attributing all that warming to CO2 we get
ln(400/280) x C = 0.7
solve for C
use that to solve ln(2) x C = ?
answer 1.4 or thereabouts
40
Gees, I didn’t know parrots could type. !!
20
Or should that be, Galah!
20
And your point is ?
01
My point is.. all we every get from Vince, is the screeching of a Galah !
21
Vince Whirlwind,
You say that the sensitivity is 35, yet, there is published SCIENCE that gives from about 1% to as much as 6%. What BELIEF of yours convinces you that it is 3%??
How do you decide which of the IPCC’s published numbers are correct?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are a whirlwind of disinformation!!
71
Vince, within about 150 of your postings that I have read, you have yet to contribute anything meaningful.
The absolute value of the “climate sensitivity” in MKSA units is smaller than the probability that you ever will.
60
Brian
As a scientist I would rate the term “Climate Sensitivity” as a huge Non Event worthy of a big yawn.
I cannot for the life of me work out the relevance of using one ridiculous term (Sensitivity) to describe another non event (atmospheric temperature linkage to man made CO2 levels).
This is something that has been useful to Climate Science but is looked on with amazement by main stream scientists and especially engineers.
KK
10
Geez Vince, you’re looking at Hansen’s fudged charts again.. If you stick with the measured rather than adjusted data, you’d see your error.
00
So based on CAGW theory winter should be hotter than summer particularly in the Northern Hemisphere because there is more CO2 in winter than summer and we all know that the sun has nothing to do with it?
222
No Scott, that isn’t it. Amazingly, scientific theories are well-thought-out, supported by evidence, and produced by people who are rather intelligent. This is why the so-called “sceptics” haven’t produced any theory of their own, nor disproven the greenhouse effect.
532
Unlike you we have unadjusted data to prove our arguments it is you and the CAGW cult that has a broken theory.
222
Let me guess, in your little fantasy-data-world, the glaciers haven’t melted, Arctic ice hasn’t dwindled, sea levels aren’t rising, and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica aren’t shrinking at an accelerated rate, right?
Are your beliefs backed by any published science? Or are they more the product of your belief?
630
It is you that live in the fantasy world Vince, how bad is it when you cant even get your models to work after you have adjusted the temperature data.
Talk about an epic fail how embarrassing for you.
oh P.s.
glacers have always melted and grown
Artic ice has always decreased and increased
sea levels have always risen an fallen
Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have always shrunk and grown
whats your point ?
we call it natural variability you have broken models. We win
242
How do you know these things, Scott? Are they written somewhere?
What makes a glacier melt? Habit, or heat? And what is all that ice doing right now? It’s all melting ata rapid rate, right? So there must be extra heat, right?
The only models that are broken are the low sensitivity models of Lindzen, Easterbrook, Akasofu and McLean. Your heroes. Wrong, proven wrong by actual real-world data.
528
Broken models Vince cant hind cast, cant predict the current, nor the short term.
Broken models Vince, broken models
162
Hansen’s “everyone stops using CO2 right now” scenario is STILL higher than reality, even the GISS adjusted values.
But hey, he tried hard to push the data up to reach that “no CO2” model, so I’ll give points for effort.
Hansen has very effectively shown that CO2 has ZERO affect on temperatures. We thank him for it.
61
The records are written Vince. In case you turned a blind eye to the fact that Viking graves in Greenland are now in permafrost and have been for several hundred years.
11
It appears that VWW’s mind has been irretrievably entrained by the media.
Trying to absorb all of the truths placed before him by the Sydney Morgen Herald and the University of the ABC
has mesmerised him into a state of chronic and deep seated Eco-Panic from which he is doomed, never to escape.
This only truth now left to contemplate is which source or Eco-Righteousness is the purer;
The renowned SMH or the UABC or perhaps the recent newcomer, USkS.
Life is full of choices!
KK
110
I agree, what he spouts has obviously been learned by rote, rather than by a socratic process.
He is a religious zealot, so he is immune to evidence.
His response to Scott’s statement that glaciers have always melted and grown, was to say, “What makes a glacier melt? Habit, or heat?”.
So from his question we can deduce that he believes that glaciers have some ideal state where they would exist in stasis, if left alone. Of course that begs the question of how the glacier got there in the first place?
His response also avoids discussing the cause of any heat that may be present. His very question demonstrates his assumption that any increase in heat must be anthropogenic, because, without the influence of mankind, there would be no extra heat to melt the glaciers, other than that produced by a hypothetically static sun.
The model in the video (and let us not forget that it is a model, and therefore open to all sorts of “refinements”), also ignores the likely presence of clouds, and what effects that they might have in the production or absorption of carbon dioxide or oxygen, over land masses, and over the oceans, since they appear to have different influences.
I doubt that he will learn anything by commenting here, but still he will come, for that is his assigned mission.
80
Yes RW.
As you intimate, the only reason that a glacier moves towards the sea is?
Yes, the huge mass of ice bearing down on its’ origin, high up in the hills.
Maybe it rained or snowed up there when the warmers at SkS weren’t looking.
All that precipitation frozen to ice is locked up at the glaciers source for a bloody long time.
maybe this is why sea levels aren’t rising?
KK
00
right.
Antarctic just set a record for sea ice extent. Arctic is melting but due to undersea volcanic activity in the region around Svalbard, not AGW. Some glaciers are melting, some are growing and no one has any accurate measurement system to determine whether the seas are rising or falling. Personal observation says they are neither rising or falling.
I could find the science papers that support this but I can’t be bothered, and besides, it wouldn’t change your mind anyway.
162
You’re serious aren’t you?
Did you just get a climate change brochure in the mail?
Or maybe you finished a year 8 climate change ‘science’ class?
No, I know, you just downloaded An Inconvenient Truth!
Melting ice? Sea levels rising? When I get home I’ll link to a New Scientist article from a month ago which now claims the melting Greenland ice is causing sea levels to fall.
The AGW crowd make it up as they go along.
111
Here you go.
New claims that if all of Greenlands ice melts local sea levels will fall by 100 meters.
http://www.warcroft.com.au/NewScientist4May2013.pdf
71
Vince Whirlwind of disinformation taunts:
“Let me guess, in your little fantasy-data-world, the glaciers haven’t melted, Arctic ice hasn’t dwindled, sea levels aren’t rising, and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica aren’t shrinking at an accelerated rate, right?
Are your beliefs backed by any published science? Or are they more the product of your belief?”
Lemme see, published work claims that geothermal activity is partially at fault for the galloping glaciers of Greenland. Published work claims that the cental glacial area is GAINING mass while the fringes are losing. Published work shows that BOTH of those trends, galloping glaciers and mass loss, is slowing.
Published work shows that the Himalayan glaciers are NOT losing glacial mass although some are some aren’t.
Published work shows that many glaciers that were “rapidly” losing mass are slowing and some, like Mt. Kilimanjaro have actually REVERSED and are again gaining mass.
The oceans have been rising since the end of the last glaciation.
The Antarctic has been cooling and increasing its sea ice to record levels. Only the western glaciers have been thought to be losing mass. Like Greenland the heat flux from the core is slightly higher underneath the western glacier due to thinner materials below. Yeah, that is all PUBLISHED work.
So, we are left with your OLD alarmist papers that have all been superceded by RECENT observations or simply SANE interpretations of what is actually happening.
As far as the touted POLAR amplification, it has not been happening in the Antarctic for at least 30 years and now the Arctic seems to be turning on you!!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Can you even say SUCKER?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
94
The cute beliefs that persist in your little bubble of delusion have nothing to do with reality.
Ice loss:
http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg
– Antarctica and Greenland are both losing mass, and the loss has been accelerating.
Why is geothermal activity suddenly relevant? How much higher is it today than in the past?
As for your nonsense about glaciers: how embarrassing for you. It is an uncontroversial fact that the vast majority of glaciers have been rapidly losing mass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
You’ve types a mass of fact-free belief. There isn’t much that can be done about that unless you are willing to go back to the drawing board and educate yourself about climate change with some facts for a change:
These people are properly-qualified, educated professionals. Unlike whoever gave you your talking points, they don’t just cherry-pick random bits of information and weave it all together into a narratide that suits their politics.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Climate-change-tracker&tracker=trend-maps
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx
64
Vince Whirligig,
I am not going to waste any more time on you.
Here is your link on glaciers:
“Systematic measurements of glacier thinning began in the 1940s, but fewer than 15 sites had been measured each year until the late 1950s. Since then more than 100 sites have contributed to the average in some years (Dyurgerov 2002, Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Error bars indicate the standard error in the mean.”
Seriously?? You believe that 100 glaciers selected by men pushing an agenda can tell us anything about what is happening NOW as opposed to 10-20 years ago?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
12
Vince doesnt understand the following concpts:
Theory,
hypothesis,
null hypothesis
and conjecture.
th first three of these are aspects of scienc. whereas
intelligent people arguing an opinion based upon extant data is the last of these, not scinc but merely conjecture. Correlation is not causation, its sophomoric.
123
So….CO2 doesn’t trap heat?
The increased CO2 hasn’t caused a radiative imbalance, with more radiation received than emitted?
The imbalance isn’t causing heat to accumulate?
The world’s ice isn’t disappearing?
The oceans aren’t heating and rising?
None of this is happening, is that right?
60
If you say so, Vince.
00
Vince Whirlwind. Im not interested, Im only pointing out your ignorance of the distinction between science and opinion.You have an opinion as to the cause of some data. Thats not science. Its just opinion. Science comprises hypothesis, null hypothesis and accurate predictions that determine which is correct. Asssuming ANY data about ANYTHING to be correct, an opinion as to the explanation of the data means nothing unless it can predict what occurs under anticipated circumstancs. Your opinon on th data doesnt. Its just an opinion. Ive no interest whatsoever in your climate assertions because I dont give a monkeys about the issue…although patently ice most definitely is not diminishing, thats besides the point, which is that you simply repeat opinions that you have opted to adopt that are neither your own nor anything more than opinion.
01
You should be interested, considering Vince is consistently providing factual material that conflicts with your stated beliefs.
40
Always look on the bright side VW.
You’re our local comedian now? This is fabulous. Your comedic timing is perfect, indeed one of the necessary qualities of good comedy, as one of our esteemed contributors noted yesterday.
It’ll take a lot of native wit to extract yourself from the inconvenience of a policy based AGW hypothesis that has been falsified by the last 17 yrs of no statistically significant warming, and models that consistently and troublesomely remain uncoupled from the empirical observations and why the temperature anomaly and CO2 are headed in opposite directions.
As I mentioned earlier, it appears you live in a bubble of unscientific certainty, but stick with it, at least you’re consistent in your confirmation bias. Stay on the bright side – it keeps us laughing.
111
“scientific theories are well-thought-out”
Which is why AGW has never got past the hypothesis stage, if it even got that far !!
71
Still waiting for just ONE tiny scrap of solid proof….. but…
Nothing……. NADA……….. ZIP !!
61
OK, that looks like a reasonable process to me:
Step 1: Think up a theory;
Step 2: Find, make, borrow, or steal, some evidence;
Step 3. “Enhance” and “cleanse” the evidence to fit the theory;
Step 4. Use an intelligent Producer to market and finance the
storyum, theory.Could work.
11
Amazingly,Vincent thinks all scientific theories are well-thought-out, supported by evidence, and produced by people who are rather intelligent. If that were true, we would be living in the dark ages because the world is flat, tectonic plates don’t move, doctors bleed you when you are sick, stress causes ulcers, etc.
“Sceptics” don’t have to produce any theory of their own but we have shown, over and over, that your religious belief in CAGW is based on a falsified theory.
00
Sorry scott but you are wrong. Yes the climate modellers have averaged the net forcing of the sun over time to zero, but if you do the maths you find the solar forcing goes from 1300W/m2 to 0W/m2 in six hours at the equator which is a mere 2 million times greater that the 3.7W/m2 forcing from the doubling of CO2 over 200years or so! 🙂
11
“The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 is a planned replica of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory spacecraft, depicted in this artist’s concept, which suffered a launch vehicle failure in 2009.” http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/details.php?id=5964
Launch is scheduled for 2014.
If the data was already adequate, why would anyone wish to launch another satellite to replace the one that never made orbit?
I am still taking AIRS with a pinch of salt (it is also only mid-troposphere estimates, I think). I look forward to seeing the data after the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 satellite is launched and working.
41
The ‘CO2 little helper” linked above recounts the delightfully outrageous claim:
“A new set of satellite data indicates that further global warming is “essentially guaranteed” due to the amplifying effects of water vapor on warming from the greenhouse gas CO2, scientists announced yesterday.”
Even when it is not happening. I’m surprised they didn’t claim Trenberth’s missing heat at the same time.
51
Thank climate change for our daily bread.
High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after the last ice age drove us to cultivate wheat.
Farming arose in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East 10,000 years ago.
Over the next two millennia, people all over the world took up the practice.
This suggests that some global event triggered this simultaneous development.
A spike in atmospheric CO2 seen after the last ice age has been put forward as the culprit – the gas was released from the ocean in abundance when ocean circulation patterns changed as the ice sheets started to melt.
Ancient climate change picked the crops we eat today
41
Handjive, I studied this in archaeology. hmmm, I cant remember much of it. The emergnc and dissmination very rapidly of th domsticatd pig is almost th only detail that sticks in my mind.
41
Ace, I can only quote this from the link:
“They tracked down ancient species of wild barley and wheat that are known to be precursors to today’s modern crops.
The seeds of these species have been found alongside human remains in a 23,000-year-old archaeological site in Israel, suggesting that hunter-gatherers were collecting and eating these species in the Fertile Crescent during the last ice age.”
.
Re: archaeology and farming animals-
The Converstation, when they do real science, recently had this great archaeology post:
Neandertal toolmakers left a leatherworking legacy
“Regardless of which species first invented the lissoir, it is a tool still used by luxury leatherworkers today, and must be one of the few tools that have survived from the Stone Age until modern times without any significant changes over the past 50,000 years or more.
It could even be claimed to be the only known Neandertal invention that is still in use today.”
.
20
I had to write an assignmnt on that crop topic…cant remember feck all about it now. I think I got about 75%.
00
“Thank climate change for our daily bread” – I am not sure whether that’s your’s or not, but its gold as it sums up the AGW religion.
Ken Follet’s Pillars of the Earth come to mind, where the peasants, the farmers and masons would walk 10 miles to Church on a Sunday to be provided with two pieces of bread and a glass of mead after mass. Worship had nothing to do with it, it was all about hanging in for an hour for the bread and beer.
20
Guilty. I just copied and pasted.
I did balk at leaving that, Maverick.
New Scientist Is a Pro Alarmist, secretly hoping for catastrophic Armageddon, sandwich board wearing type site, usually visited for laughs by rational folk.
40
Failed prophecy ; how it’s done:-
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/prophecy-fails-scientific-test-ck-144540
40
A few inconvenient truths. Apologies for the long comment.
We Homo sapiens breath in a mixture of gases, most being nitrogen, extract some O2 for our metabolic and energy requirements, then exhale out the rest (via lungs and skin) along with our contribution of a little more CO2. We won’t mention methane here!
Plants take in CO2 and O2 and release O2 (from H2O) for metabolic and energy functions. While we are here, why is Nitrogen the largest component (78%) of the atmosphere and what organisms convert it into plant-available form, as an essential and primary requirement for plants (and other organisms)? Hint, plants grow in the soil, and in the atmosphere (two distinct polarities).
Life forms other than plants are the primary biological organisms, comprising the macro and micro-components (both aerobic and anaerobic) that function as the key drivers (storage, processing and release) of CO2.
Comments are blatantly incorrect when “warm” lefties (and others) refer to visible water vapour emanating from “smokestacks” on TV images of cooling towers at coal-fuelled power stations as “clear” evidence of the invisible CO2 gas “pollution”. Others make a similar error referring to visible vapour as “steam”, which, like CO2, is equally invisible. The point of this is to illustrate incorrect assumptions often lead to myths, which become reality and therefore “truth” for many. It’s not difficult to be accurate.
The macro and micro components of soil biology are the key drivers of CO2, NOT plants. Ask the question; by what mechanism(s) do photosythesising plants (and other organisms, you know, the ones that are green in our colour spectrum, take in CO2, O2 and other gases? Answer, through pores. In higher plants they are called stomata (plural, stoma singular). Guard cells regulate the opening and closing of stoma, depending on the relative concentration of CO2 and O2, to manage two phases: photo-synthesis and photo-respiration for water retention or loss. Why do plants have a predominance of stoma on the UNDERSIDE of leaves?
Because the SOIL (and aquatic) biology, in the process of respiration, break down organic matter, release CO2 and other gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc). Soil and aquatic biology, regulated primarily by temperature, nutrients and water, is the primary functional component of CO2 release to the atmosphere. Micro-macro biology in soil, aquatic and marine environments collectively, is the key driver of CO2, not plants per se; they are just a recipient of CO2 as it passes through the photosythetic pathway to create organic matter that all other life forms are totally dependent on. Everything is inter-connected and inter-dependent. Reductionist (NASA) thinking is NOT how Life on Earth functions.
Reductionist, simplistic but wrong-headed thinking is a core mechanism of belief underpinning the anthropogenic global warming religion. The NASA et al propaganda is a classic example of this by over-simplification and deliberate error of omission, obscures and excludes the truth. What thinking people should do is choose our language and terms with greater precision, understand the core elements of the argument, and aim to see what it is we are actually looking at.
We all have the gift of learning something new every moment of our life. All it takes is independent thinking, choosing to not behave like we are in a mob of sheep, wandering along in the dust following the other moron in front. I prefer clear air and an unobstructed view every day. That’s what Jo and others do and provide insights for other, so why not follow suit?
180
Well put.
00
Why don’t apples taste as delicious anymore? Climate change apparently…
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/08/why-apples-dont-taste-as-delicious-anymore/
20
Blimey! Add that to the growing list of things caused by AGW!
Can’t have anything to do with the way they’re kept in storage for months can it?
Perish (sorry) the thought!
00
Since a guy in WA breed pink lady apples, apples have never tasted so good!
00
Much tearing of the hair or what very little is left here as I was all ready to post and clicked the wrong damn page and lost the lot. Ah well! Sigh!
With a projected global population of some 9 billions by 2050 [ at which point the demographers believe the global population will stabilise before it begans a long slow decline. Birth rates world wide are falling and continuing to fall dramatically in nearly all nations including the Islamic nations. CIA facts book based; http://www.indexmundi.com/g/ ] the world’s farmers are going to need all the CO2 they can lay hands on to meet the demands for mankind’s most basic plant food items, the various plant based foods such as Wheat that are mankind’s largest source in tonnage terms, of a basic food source.
The excellent CO2 Science has a vast range of CO2 research papers plus “Data” tables on the growth and bio-mass response of a large number of plant species which translates into increased yields directly related to elevated levels of CO2.
The Data tables list a wide range of plant species under 3 increasing levels of CO2, 300, 600 and 900 ppm. These elevated CO2 levels are all additional to the atmospheric CO2 of some 395.5 ppm at present. So a plant such as “common Wheat” selected under” W” in the “Data” Bio-mass index shows the response of wheat to the first 300 ppm [ + 400ppm currently =700 ppm ] with a 33 % increase in Bio-mass and a not noted but therefore a commiserate increase in yield.
It is known from research that Wheat ‘s highest yields are at about the 700 ppm total CO2
The above of course presupposes that the plant’s nutrient requirements and moisture needs are not limiting to achieving the increased biomass production and consequent higher yields.
There are a half dozen FACE research projects under way around the world on the global food crops to research the effects of increasing CO2 on food and field crops under actual true field conditions including this one at Horsham here in western Victoria.
AGFACE (Australian Grains Free Air CO₂ Enrichment)
Some of the research material from this FACE project can be found in this PDF for those who would like to know what chances they have of still being able to find a decent feed in 2050.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn191/presentations/PDF%20Session%204/Chen_61.pdf
One of the interesting items with plants is the way the Leaf Stomata work,
The Stomata are tiny microscopic pores on the underside of the leaves and some stems on plants through which plants take in CO2 and expel O2 after splitting the CO2 to get the carbon [ as well as carbon from the soil ] which plants use via the photosynthesis process to combine the Carbon with other elements to create the carbon based sugars that provide the energy for the plants bio-logical processes and consequent growth process.
The plant’s by-product are of course the O2 expelled through these same Stomata which all sentient life on this Earth uses in it’s biological processes and in turn expels CO2 for the plants to re-cycle.
It is an astonishing and mutually supportive system of life where the sentient species and that includes us, are totally dependent on the plant world for our very survival, for the very air we breathe, for the Oxygen that we need to even live.
Plants in turn have become totally dependent in other ways on the animal and insect and bacterial world.
When atmospheric CO2 is higher,ie; the atmospheric CO2 vapour pressure is higher, the plants don’t need as large or as many Leaf Stomata to take in their CO2 requirements.
It is through Stomata that plants also expel water vapour derived mostly from the soil and used to transport nutrients through the plants vascular system. The water vapour is expelled through the Stomata at a rate that keeps the plant within it’s temperature tolerance range; ie the expellation of the WV cools the plant on hot days which is why you see plants that are not heat tolerant, wilt in extreme heat as they either run out of water or can’t cool themselves at a rate to match the evaporative effects of the heat so they take a compensatory reflex protective action and shut down their growth processes until a more favourable growth situation, ie; cooler conditions occur,.
With higher CO2 levels and consequently smaller stomata, the plant expels less water vapour and and therefore uses lquite a lot less water relative to it’s total biomass production than do plants in low CO2 environments.
Within the plant biologists circles there is a strong belief that the the so called pre -industrial CO2 was up around the 320 ppm and not the popular 280 ppm of the claimed CO2 based global warming believers.
The biologists have used the sizes and numbers of stomata on fossilised leaves to come to this conclusion. And it is one i would subscribe to as politically to make the whole increase in CO2 look ever so much more serious and therefore “dangerous” there was a hard political need by the CAGW cultists to keep the claimed pre-industrial CO2 levels as low as possible as a starting point for mankind’s supposed “pollution” of the planet by this absolutely essential to all Earth’s life forms, Carbon Dioxide.
You can see the range of measured pre-industrial CO2 here ; Basis for the Estimate of Pre-Industrial CO2
And for teachers and students and for some more information on plant stomata and their role in plant’s use of CO2 and for some experiments for students [ and others ] this site might be of interest.
http://www.concord.org/~btinker/gaiamatters/investigations/stomata.html.
bluntly the world’s bio mass both plant and animal in both oceans and land will benefit enormously if global CO2 increases over the next few decades.
We are in fact running far to close to the minimal atmospheric CO2 levels of about 180 ppm where most plants will shut down their growth processes and at about 100 ppm will die
At 1200 ppm , a common fed in glass house concentration of CO2 the plant growth of this world would be so prolific in a way that few of us can get our minds around.
And maybe those kitchen plants that you all assumed did so well because of the warmth and water might not do so well if your kitchen CO2 was reduced from about 700 to 900 ppm back to that 400 ppm outside.
100
on their Sustainability front page, Bloomberg has this as “Australia CO2 to Survive Rudd-Abbott Standoff ” & it’s just as silly a headline when u link to it:
16 Aug: Bloomberg: Australia Carbon to Survive Rudd-Abbott Standoff: Energy
By James Paton & Mike Anderson
“There’s a whole raft of possibilities that quite legitimately don’t result in the abandonment of the carbon price in the next 12 months,” Schneider, the Sydney-based head of the power-investment group at Investec, said in a phone interview. “No doubt it is going to be harder to remove the legislation than anticipated.” …
While Abbott is still the favorite to win enough votes in the lower house to become prime minister, he has a 25 percent chance of getting the Senate’s support to throw out the carbon price, New Energy Finance says…
The increase in Australia’s implied carbon price in the past few months means traders are betting against repeal, Bromley said.
Exchange-traded futures including emission costs are showing prices of A$47 to A$55 a megawatt for the year ended in July 2015, he said. Over-the counter contracts excluding carbon for the same period now trade for A$39 to A$48, depending on the region. The difference between those two contracts, after adjustments, averaged about A$10 in July after Rudd was reinstated…
“The electricity market seems to be pricing in some prospect of a carbon price,” Tim Jordan, a Sydney-based analyst at Deutsche Bank, said in an interview…
Australian companies are assuming there will be some form of carbon pricing,” Tony Wood, energy-program director at the Melbourne-based Grattan Institute, said in a phone interview…
“I do support having a price on carbon,” Santos Chief Executive Officer David Knox told reporters today…
Trading Licenses
***More than 100 companies have received licenses from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to trade carbon. The list mainly includes banks such as Westpac and Deutsche Bank and carbon-trading specialists such as COzero.
Power generators are also starting to prepare for carbon trading…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-16/australia-carbon-to-survive-rudd-abbott-standoff-energy.html
30
It looks to me as though there is a lot more CO2 in the winter than in the summer. This makes the winter warm, does it?
70
The video is deceptive. Note that there is a band between the South Pole and just above the dateline where NO CO2 is shown, giving the impression that most of the process lies in the NH and is thus due to man-made CO2.
The oceans hold huge amounts of CO2. Low temperatures permit the oceans to absorb more CO2, aided by rainfall. The source of much SH CO2 is not man, but natural evolution of CO2 as the oceans warm again.
The video attempts to hide the oceanic CO2 processes by suppressing SH data.
90
only a couple of minutes, but it’s fun to put a face AND A VOICE to matthew carr who churns out CAGW/carbon garbage daily for bloomberg. is that an australian accent?
VIDEO: Bloomberg: Carbon Market Not Incentivizing Emission Cuts
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg News’ Matthew Carr examines the future of the European carbon trading market as banks reduce trading in the emissions market. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/carbon-market-not-incentivizing-emission-cuts-carr-BM9cgJEYQLi0wUGm3RVIfw.html
30
“And maybe those kitchen plants that you all assumed did so well because of the warmth and water might not do so well if your kitchen CO2 was reduced from about 700 to 900 ppm back to that 400 ppm outside.”
People claim that talking to your plants helps them grow. Maybe the exhaled CO2 gives them a boost.
60
At close to 40,000 ppm CO2 for expelled human breath you might be right.
20
A good point.
The AGW bletheren like to say that CO2 is toxic and pollution, but the main reason that high CO2 levels (like over 10,000ppm) start to affect humans is because the percentage of CO2 to O2 gets out of balance for the human lungs to allow proper interchange, thus its the lack of O2 in the blood system that is really causing the problem.
Same thing happens if the H2O to O2 balance is way off.
CO is actually toxic, though.
Does anyone know the CO2 concentration in a hyperbaric chamber, with all the added oxygen ?
I would suspect that the CO2 level could be quite high, but the extra oxygen keeps the balance reasonable.
41
Prince Charles isn’t so loony as some thought, after all, is he, eh?
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/prince-charles-enjoys-talking-to-his-plants
Eh?
20
No Jorge, he IS a loon. Apparently the plants told him that Islam is a Religion of Peace and he believes it!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
20
That is probably because nothing with a higher IQ than a geranium actually listens to him.
Actually, that is possibly unfair. Does anybody know what the IQ of a geranium is?
20
14 Aug: Reuters: Spaniards rebel against solar panel levy
Two weeks after Spain’s government slapped a series of levies on green energy, Inaki Alonso hired two workmen to remove the solar panels he had put on his roof only six months earlier.
Alonso, an architect who specializes in ecological projects, calculated the cost of generating his own power under a new energy law and decided the numbers no longer added up.
Neither was it possible to leave the panels on his Madrid home without connecting them to the electricity grid; that would have risked an astronomical fine of between 6 million and 30 million euros ($8 million-$40 million)…
Under the old regime, Spanish consumers could recover a typical 1,600-2,100 euro investment in solar panels through savings on their utility bills in about five years. According to FENIE, an association for solar panel installations, this will jump to 17 years when the levies are imposed under the new law…
Apart from people in isolated communities, Spaniards must connect their panels to the grid within two months. This allows their solar power production to be metered remotely – and taxed.
However, some panel owners plan to rebel by ignoring the government’s deadline, confident the courts would hesitate to uphold the huge fines. These were laid down in an old 1997 energy law and, while possibly appropriate for a large corporation, no private individual could ever pay them…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-spain-energy-idUSBRE97D0FX20130814?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
60
Just some information for those interested.
From the CDIAC site [ Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ]
Q. How much carbon dioxide is exhaled with each breath?
A. According to the text “Biology” by Claude A. Villee (Third Edition, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and London, copyright 1957), a person at rest inhales and exhales about 500 ml with each breath. That air consists of 150 ml of recently inhaled air that is in the larger air passages (where no exchange of gases between the lungs and blood stream occurs) and 350 ml of air that has been in the alveoli of the lungs. Thus, 150 ml of the 500 ml may be considered atmospheric air (approximately 0.04% carbon dioxide by volume), and 350 ml of the 500 ml may be considered alveolar air (approximately 5.3% carbon dioxide by volume). The average carbon dioxide content of the 500 ml of exhaled air is thus:
[(150 ml)/(500 ml) x 0.04% CO2] + [(350 ml)/(500 ml) x 5.3% CO2] = 3.7% CO2 by volume, which is equivalent to 5.7% CO2 by weight.
22.4 L of air at standard temperature and pressure has a mass of about 28.5 g (the difference in the average molecular weight of atmospheric and alveolar air is trivial, despite the differences in percent nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor), so 500 ml of air has a mass of about 0.636 g. The 5.7% of this mass that is carbon dioxide would therefore would weigh about 0.037 g (equivalent to about 0.010 g of carbon). [RMC]
&
Q. Should one be concerned about indoor levels of carbon dioxide and, if so, what are the potential effects?
A. Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), even in a poorly ventilated room, must reach very high levels for this colorless, odorless gas to reach dangerous levels. The maximum concentration recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for an 8-hour occupation is 5000 parts per million (ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also uses 5000 ppm as their threshold for occupational safety.
Levels of CO2 have been known to reach 3000 ppm in homes, schools, and offices. Many things influence indoor concentration levels including the number of people in a room (human respiration), their size and level of activity, efficiency of the air ventilation system, presence and abundance of plants, time of day, etc.
There have been cases documented where indoor CO2 levels below 5000 ppm have caused discomfort and headache. Cases have also een documented where a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm produced signs of intoxication, and a few minutes of exposure at 70,000-100,000 ppm can cause loss of consciousness. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life. [RMC]
60
US Navy acknowledges levels of up to 8,000 ppm in submarine environment.
40
Here’s a handy website that I use for work sometimes that came up with some CO2 information http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html funny story is I showed a young civil engineer this and he couldn’t believe the CO2 levels, I guess if a lie is told often enough……
40
And watch the Amazon and the middle of the African continent.
NO CO2 at all.
Sorry, I call BS !!!
51
AndyG55,
the colors are based on a cutoff (that I can’t read on the picture). Any CO2 concentration BELOW that cutoff is not shown for clarity. Simply assume every area on the map has at least 350ppm and you won’t be too far off!!
20
Yes, I know. 😉
11
While graphics of satellites are supposed to convince us that this animation is just a representation of exact measurements, there are a few dreadfully obvious inconsistencies and ambiguities.
• “Carbon dioxide is yellow” – how much? After all, CO2 is at an average of 400 ppmv throughout the atmosphere – what exactly does the “yellow” depict? Departure from some mean – if yes, why is there no “anti-yellow” showing CO2 concentration below the same mean?
• Please notice that the equatorial belt remains “not yellow” throughout the animation (except for a few patches over or close to land) – is this supposed to be the “measured fact” that oceans on the Equator never emit CO2?
• Please notice that a yellow band does appear just above the Antarctic, where there are no human sources of CO2. Why? Is the southern ocean nevertheless emitting CO2 – but equatorial seas aren’t?
• There is a thickening yellow of CO2 over Siberia, in the winter. Yet there are virtually no human sources of CO2 in Siberia, and natural ones (such as venting from marshlands) are frozen during the winter. Is this CO2 supposed to come from industrial areas of Europe and America, all blown precisely eastward?
• And finally, it is a well known fact that most of the aerial CO2 is converted by marine algae, not land-based vegetation. If the seasonal variation of CO2 was indeed a consequence of reduced/increased plant activity, the “zigzag” should actually be turned on its head: CO2 should increase during Northern hemisphere summer because that is Southern hemisphere winter, therefore lower insolation of 70% of the oceans (which are on the Southern hemisphere), therefore reduced rate of photosynthesis.
To wit, this is just a graphic rehash of Al Gore’s “planet is breathing” in “An Inconvenient Fact”. Whoever is inclined to accept this animation as a correct portrayal of fact, might as well accept this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_aziIIp8U8
I find it much better done than NASA JPL’s
40
Miso,
the co2 concentration has a low end cutoff. No color means there is CO2 below 350 or 360 or whatever they picked. The flux then is from this base level up.
The CO2 in Siberia can be from the methane that is venting from the arctic and from CO2 blowing in from other areas. The wind does move around a lot of atmospheric stuff like water vapor, dust, black carbon…
My guess is that the equatorial belt does not have as much ocean CO2 emissions as the water temps do not change much. Also the rain forests and ocean flora take up quite a bit of CO2. The wind patterns are generally low altitude to the tropics and high altitude away.
10
KuhnKat,
This doesn’t make any sense.
“No color means there is CO2 below 350 or 360 or whatever they picked” – are you saying that the video is showing CO2 concentrations *above* a threshold which is *below* the average? Thinks about it what this means.
“The CO2 in Siberia can be from the methane that is venting from the arctic” – no, it can’t, Siberian marshlands are *frozen* in the Northern hemisphere winter.
“My guess is that the equatorial belt does not have as much ocean CO2 emissions as the water temps do not change much” – that might be so if there was no thermohaline circulation.
10
Miso, what doesn’t make any sense is people thinking that there are areas of the troposphere or even into the stratosphere where the CO2 level would ever go under 200 ppm!! CO2 might not meet the definition of being well mixed, BUT, it certainly is everywhere in the troposphere above 300ppm.
The methane is from the arctic shore and was recently used to try and raise the METHANE ADDING TO CO2 alarmism. The Russian scientists determined the huge outpouring has been going on for decades or more!!
The thermohaline is at the bottom of the ocean. Of course it does come up along the western South American coast. The CO2 released there will depend on the concentration when it went down. It will also mostly be dumping close to shore as that is where the water will be warming.
10
Hey all, let me point out an important feature of this video. For decades the warmners have been chanting aboiut CO2 being a WELL MIXED GAS in the atmosphere. In the post on the paper WUWT did, this group explained the delay in getting it published was the resistance from the ALARMISTS in giving up this talking point.
One look through this video and it is obvious CO2 is NOT well mixed in the atmosphere with concentrations varying by over 10ppm over short periods of time and probably much more!!!
One more FAIL for Climate Scientology.
60
Hi Kuhnkat, just a simple observation but the variance of the video if based on 390 ppm is +2.5% or minus 2.5% so this is very very small. It is probably outside the accuracy range of the instrument.
20
Bob,
I must have missed where they claimed the vide was based on 390 +/- 2.5%, but let’s go with that, 2.5% of 390 is about 10ppm so they would be showing a variance of 20ppm.
Works for me. I can’t read their legend in the lower left so was just guessing based on what I would do. Of course, these guys have to pass Climate Scientology peer review.
10
KuhnKat, they didn’t claim it! I picked it up from the illustrations and animation. I know the legend wasn’t very clear but that’s what it looked like to me.
I just did a bit of investigation at the AIRS website and they quote an accuracy of +/- 1 ppm so if I’m not missing anything this instrument is reportedly very accurate.
10
Bob,
the instrument accuracy is 1ppm. The change they are showing is up to 20 ppm. Sounds good?? As I said, this disproves their well mixed claims. It also shows huge fluxes they never considered when building the models!!
After you pointed it out I took a magnifying glass to the bottom video and saw that they show a range of 380-400 PPM on their legend. Still have no idea the actual numbers for the top one.
10
CO2 is a well-mixed gas.
Here is Cape Grim data:
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
Here is Hawai’i:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts
Here are mutliple site shown together:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=rug
And of course, researchers have analysed CO2 concentration at different altitudes:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2455/2011/acp-11-2455-2011.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v288/n5789/abs/288347a0.html
No informed commenter would assert that CO2 is anything other than a “well-mixed gas”.
21
So if the readings from a single monitoring station , at Monarch Loa , that we have been relying on are indeed not representative of the whole planet, what does it say about the quality of all conclusions so far inferred about the influence of CO2 on warming ?
20
Ooops, Eddie!
Who relies on measurements from a single location?
Nobody.
What does that say about the quality of your commentary?
21
Sorry, but without an actual definition of “Well-mixed”, we can’t really say one way or another.
00
One of the very intriguing items are the measurements of CO2 in Antarctica at the South Pole station.
It seems extraordinary that what is claimed to be basically a very climatically isolated region cut off for the most part from the weather and climate in the ROW by the polar vortex and Circumpolar ocean current and polar jet streams that even here the supposed Northern Hemisphere seasonal effects on CO2 concentrations are still to be seen at a very much reduced amplitude at the South Pole
With average temperatures of around – 27 C in summer to – 60 C in winter at the SP, it seems incongruous that the claimed NH vegetation induced seasonal variations in CO2 concentrations can still be seen in the CO2 graphs from the South Pole.
Measuring Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide at the South Pole
&
A global distribution of CO2 graph
I would put my money in the case of the CO2 around the Antarctic continent and South Pole as being primarily created by oceanic systems and the Southern Ocean biosphere surrounding the Antarctic continent such as algae and etc. being in a fair part responsible for the seasonal variations in the South Pole CO2 concentrations.
Besides it’s darn near cold enough down there for the CO2 to condense out directly [ There is no liquid form of CO2 at standard atmosphere pressures ] to it’s solid form ie; dry ice at – 78.5 C.
The Russian Antarctic Vostok station has recorded down to -89.2 C , the lowest temperature so far recorded on Earth, but CO2 will sublime back into a gas when in the free atmosphere as it gets above it’s solidificatiuon temperature so there is little likelihood of ever seeing real time natural Dry Ice even at the temps to be found in the worst of the Antarctic cold.
40
OOPS! again! ; Click on the graph for sizing.
30
Where does the CO2 go?
google carbon tracker, I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy but I wish I’d mentioned it my origianal post after reading the replies.
https://twitter.com/climatefraud/status/336384464613687296/photo/1
30
This is another example of modern NASA work. Aliens are gunner git us for polutin’ 🙂
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf
Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
Seth D. Baum,1 Jacob D. Haqq-Misra,2 & Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman3
1. Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University. E-mail: sbaum@psu.edu
2. Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
3. NASA Planetary Science Division
See page 20:
ETI could seek our harm if they believe that we are a threat to other civilizations.
The thought of humanity being a threat to other civilizations may seem implausible given the
likelihood of our technological inferiority relative to other civilizations. However, this
inferiority may be a temporary phenomenon. Perhaps ETI observe our rapid and destructive
expansion on Earth and become concerned of our civilizational trajectory.
20
Watch as CO2 rises and falls over Australia and New Zealand.
Australia 19 / New Zealand 25 points per minute measured free to AIRS7 9.00pm EST.
Not happy.
00
New Zealand 30 CO2 to Australia CO2 22.
Still not happy.
10
Did anyone notice that by plotting this on a Miller cylindrical projection map of the world, it visually makes the amount of co2 much larger? Subtle or not so subtle propaganda.
10
Dry Ice, which is extremely cold, is made of CO2, LOL. Water our major greenhouse gas 99.96% absorbs sunlight and warms during the day and cools by dissapating that warmth in the darkness of night, as does CO2 0.04%. Thus rendering both greenhouse gases completely neutral to any long term temperature change of our atmosphere.
So what is powerful enough to have caused the many ice ages and warm times on our planet over the last few billion years? Our Sun and its ever changing cycles of Life…. There it is in the sky, and little men wonder why?
30
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/watch-as-co2-rises-and-falls-over-the-arctic-every-year/#more-29258 […]
00
[…] Via Jo Nova […]
00
Update my blog post “Bureaucratic Dioxide” http://wp.me/p3Bc8A-i9 with that lovely NASA video! – Cheers Jo 😉
00
* Updated
00