Global warming discussion III

[macdoc]

Segalstad et al find there is little difference (only a few years) between CO2 residence-time ~5-7 years and CO2 lifetime ~14-17 years. The notion that CO2 lifetime is "a thousand years or more" is based upon the highly-flawed IPCC Bern Model.

that is a misleading crock.....do you understand what a cycle is.???

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever
Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected.

Carbon is forever
Distant future: our continued use of fossil fuels could leave a CO2legacy that lasts millennia, says climatologist David Archer

123RF.COM/PAUL MOORE
After our fossil fuel blow-out, how long will the CO2 hangover last? And what about the global fever that comes along with it? These sound like simple questions, but the answers are complex — and not well understood or appreciated outside a small group of climate scientists. Popular books on climate change — even those written by scientists — if they mention the lifetime of CO2 at all, typically say it lasts "a century or more"1 or "more than a hundred years".

"That's complete nonsense," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. It doesn't help that the summaries in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have confused the issue, allege Caldeira and colleagues in an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences2. Now he and a few other climate scientists are trying to spread the word that human-generated CO2, and the warming it brings, will linger far into the future — unless we take heroic measures to pull the gas out of the air.

University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, "The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this"

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

••••

Your volcano comment is also a crock ....and you are even confused on your own claim.
You were talking an undersea volcano warming the ocean....now you are dicussing GT of something.

50-70 volcanoes are active (erupting) each year. At any given time, there is an average of about 20 volcanoes that are erupting.

do you really check your facts or just pull it from the nether orifice

GERLACH: “Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are on the order of a hundred times greater than the emissions from all the volcanoes on the earth. Period.”

That’s Terrence Gerlach, retired U.S. Geological Survey volcanologist. Gerlach says that at the start of the Industrial Revolution, human activities and volcanoes were roughly equal sources of carbon dioxide.

But humans today burn enormous quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. As a result, our emissions of CO2 are now much larger than the emissions from volcanoes. And in turn, global levels of atmospheric CO2 are now higher than they have been in more than eight hundred thousand years.

You just cannot get your head around scale can you....what a load of factually incorrect horsepucky you keep inflicting on a science forum.

Even your pretend science is garbage...

Researchers Richard Bellerby, Are Olsen, and Gisle Nondal wrote a series of articles in Norwegian newspaper Forskning about Segalstad's stated beliefs and research on human CO2 emissions and how they do not affect climate change.
The researchers went through Segalstad's points and gave counterarguments, concluding that he had used "incorrect interpretations of laws and geochemical data, in addition to a complete neglect of published measurements". They also repeatedly mentioned that Segalstad has yet to publish his CO2 research in any "recognized scientific journal".[12][13]

another "wishful thinker" ........in the pay of the Heartland AGW denier cadre.

Speaking at the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute on March 8, 2009,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Segalstad

 

[Haig]

that is a misleading crock.....do you understand what a cycle is.???



http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

••••

Your volcano comment is also a crock ....and you are even confused on your own claim.
You were talking an undersea volcano warming the ocean....now you are dicussing GT of something.


do you really check your facts or just pull it from the nether orifice



You just cannot get your head around scale can you....what a load of factually incorrect horsepucky you keep inflicting on a science forum.

Even your pretend science is garbage...



another "wishful thinker" ........in the pay of the Heartland AGW denier cadre.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Segalstad

Ah! so you believe the Bern Model ?

Is the Bern Model Non-Physical?

Now, there’s a lot to criticize about the Bern Model; many of the criticisms can be found in the reader comments that followed the partitioning-argument post. Notable among those were richardscourtney’s . Also persuasive to me was Dr. Brown’s observation that the atmosphere holds too small a portion of the total carbon-cycle content for the 0.152 value assigned to the infinite-time-constant component to be correct. And much in Ferdinand Engelbeen’s oeuvre is no doubt relevant to the issue.

As the diagram shows, though, the left, atmosphere-representing vessel receives all the emissions, and it permits all of the other vessels to compete freely for its contents according to their respective membranes’ permeabilities. So what is not wrong with the model is that it requires the atmosphere to partition its contents, i.e., to withhold some of its contents from the faster processes so that the slower ones get the share that the model dictates.

 

[macdoc]

Stop dishing out crap from non-scientists. This is not your AGW denier podium for Wattsupmybutt.
When it's published in Nature and peer reviewed then somebody might pay attention.

The evidence and the science is clear.....it's getting warmer, we're responsible....even Exxon acknowledges it's an "engineering problem".
You are not even wrong..errors are understandable and can be corrected....rather instead...your arguments are completely delusional about CO2 and it's well established role and you haven't the faintest clues about how your planet actually works.

Just your saying I heard.....a thousand volcanos.....when at any given time there are maybe 20 active and contributing a rounding error to global CO2 emission is fall off the dock laughing material.

Hell ....there are a half dozen here that could do a better job playing devil's advocate than you are doing.

There are real issues in how best to deal with the change that is in progress......denying it just gets you laughed off the stage....

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped WUWT non-science...

Which only leaves the question of why you are obsessing with a climate change denier web site rather than learning the climate science for yourself from a reliable web site presenting actual climate science, Haig?
This is a WUWT blog entry by a random guy (Joe Born). He does not read as deluded as other guests, e.g. Christopher Monckton.

 

[Trakar]

I read ...

Given the unsupported nature of the following misunderstandings, there are genuine doubts regarding the accuracy of this statement

The 1,000 volcanoes that go off every year produce a major amount of the 166 gigatons produced on Earth every year. Man makes six of them, 3.22%, a fact that is in every geophysical text and reference.

Please reference these assertions as they conflict with demonstrable evidences and facts.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

Segalstad et al find there is little difference (only a few years) between CO2 residence-time ~5-7 years and CO2 lifetime ~14-17 years. The notion that CO2 lifetime is "a thousand years or more" is based upon the highly-flawed IPCC Bern Model.

Again uncited and incompletely referenced (proper citations and references are designed to help others find and view the source of the information you are alluding to so that your statements can be evaluated and verified, without proper and complete references - or direct links - your statements are unsupported and without citation). Additionally, this is generally and specifically factually incorrect.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

If CO2 lifetime was truly 1000+ years, fossil fuel derived CO2 should be much higher than 3.75%, as alarmists have claimed in the past using incorrect interpretations of C13/C14 ratios.

again, uncited, unsupported and generally incorrect

The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

 

[Reality Check]

It's hypocritical to discuss the melting glaciers and sea ice in the Antarctic and NOT even mention the significant volcanism there.

But, Haig, it is a lie that posters here have not discussed the melting glaciers and sea ice and volcanism in the Antarctic. Posters have done that and pointed out to you that the volcanism is not significant.

It is a lie that the proportion of man made CO2 is not significant when the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is significant.

BTW: Ignorance about volcanoes and climate science does not really excuse ignorance of the fact that volcanoes are a source of cooling in climate!

It is a lie that the additional warming from man made CO2 is not significant when the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is significant enough to cause global warming.

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

There is the repeated ignorance about the real world and the "Pause / Hiatus" and the "alarmist" paranoia ) - there has been no pause or hiatus in global warming, Haig!
The science is that the heat content of the land and oceans has been rising and even accelerating a little, Haig!
The science is that global surface temperatures have not paused nor are they in hiatus, Haig
The science is that the warming trend in global surface temperatures in the last decade or so is less than the warming trend in previous decades, Haig. This has mistakenly been labeled a pause or hiatus in the popular (and climate change denial) media.

 

[Haig]

But, Haig, it is a lie that posters here have not discussed the melting glaciers and sea ice and volcanism in the Antarctic. Posters have done that and pointed out to you that the volcanism is not significant.

It is a lie that the proportion of man made CO2 is not significant when the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is significant.

BTW: Ignorance about volcanoes and climate science does not really excuse ignorance of the fact that volcanoes are a source of cooling in climate!

It is a lie that the additional warming from man made CO2 is not significant when the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is significant enough to cause global warming.

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

There is the repeated ignorance about the real world and the "Pause / Hiatus" and the "alarmist" paranoia ) - there has been no pause or hiatus in global warming, Haig!
The science is that the heat content of the land and oceans has been rising and even accelerating a little, Haig!
The science is that global surface temperatures have not paused nor are they in hiatus, Haig
The science is that the warming trend in global surface temperatures in the last decade or so is less than the warming trend in previous decades, Haig. This has mistakenly been labeled a pause or hiatus in the popular (and climate change denial) media.

Thanks for clearing that up RC

 

[Reality Check]

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Good, Haig, some actual science for once rather than the fantasies from WUWT. Pity that you spoil this by repeating a link to a WUWT fantasy!

What is worse though is ignorance abut what you cite, Haig. This paper abstract is not about the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. This paper is about the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature! The "CO2 ..." quote does not come from the abstract. So either you paid to see the full paper or you are relying on a climate change denier web site - is that the rather deluded hockeyschtick blog, Haig?

What is even worse is that lack of basic scholarship - there are comments about the 2013 paper:
Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim

Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”

The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored

• Carbon isotopic trends of CO2 and atmospheric O2 concentration records are summarized.
• These evidences falsify the refutation of anthropogenic CO2 increase.
• Independent evidence is always recommended to test purely statistical results.

This boils down to either
* you have cited an statistically and physically invalid paper that ignores the evidence for man made CO2 that you should know or
* you have been fooled (again!) by a lie on a climate change denier blog.

 

[Reality Check]

Ah! so you believe the Bern Model ? ...

We already know that you are obsessed with and cannot comprehend the non-science of the WUWT climate change denier blog, Haig - you do not have to confirm it again and again.
A bunch of ignorant people on the Internet whining on about the Bern Model is not scientific literature.

ETA: This is not the religious part of the forum - no one believes the Bern Model. What people believe is the scientific evidence that the Bern Model works not hat ignorant people on a blog write.
Some science: See Figure 2 in Carbon Dioxide: Projected emissions and concentrations and not the almost exact match of the Bern model with measured CO2.
Also note the WUWT obsession with the Bern Model when it is not the only model in the world! The ISAM model is a check on the Bern model.

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks for clearing that up RC

Yes, Haig - three lies and repeated ignorance in that post about the climate needed to be cleared up.
Do you understand the lies and repeated ignorance and undertake not to repeat them (probably not )?

 

[Reality Check]

For those interested in science: Climate and Carbon Cycle Models is a web based implementation of various models.

 

[Haig]

For those interested in science: Climate and Carbon Cycle Models is a web based implementation of various models.

Care to comment on the hunt for the missing heat due to the Pause / Hiatus ?

Seems its moved on from the Pacific Ocean and it's now believed (according to models) to be hiding in the Indian Ocean

Tracking the Missing Heat from the Global Warming Hiatus

Despite indications that the Pacific Ocean is helping to take up the world's missing surface heat, the heat doesn't linger; oceanographers now find that heat has moved over to the Indian Ocean.

 

[Trakar]

Care to comment on the hunt for the missing heat due to the Pause / Hiatus ?

Seems its moved on from the Pacific Ocean and it's now believed (according to models) to be hiding in the Indian Ocean

Tracking the Missing Heat from the Global Warming Hiatus

What "hiatus" are you going on about?

http://gergs.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Global_monthly_temps_all_long_extrap.png

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2575.html

 

[grmcdorman]

They use that anomalous peak just before 2000 as the starting point. Then they can say that there is no increase after that.

 

[CapelDodger]

They use that anomalous peak just before 2000 as the starting point. Then they can say that there is no increase after that.

Indeed, and they've also retreated from surface temps via UAH mid-troposphere to the final defense-line of RSS from a satellite in a decaying orbit, aka a death-spiral. Rather poetic, I feel.

 

[Trakar]

They use that anomalous peak just before 2000 as the starting point. Then they can say that there is no increase after that.

These are monthly averages, no single month can be the "starting point" for anything when the period of significance is three decades.

 

[Trakar]

Indeed, and they've also retreated from surface temps via UAH mid-troposphere to the final defense-line of RSS from a satellite in a decaying orbit, aka a death-spiral. Rather poetic, I feel.

definitely apropos.

According to the standards "they" (those who justify an extreme anomalous monthly reading as the place to establish a new trend starting) establish, however, the lowest modern temp. anomaly was in late 1888, and hasn't been beaten yet. By their standards we've had 130+ years of steadily warming temperatures!

 

[grmcdorman]

They use that anomalous peak just before 2000 as the starting point. Then they can say that there is no increase after that.

These are monthly averages, no single month can be the "starting point" for anything when the period of significance is three decades.

Absolutely; I wasn't saying it was correct. Even just eyeballing that chart should be enough to see the error in the claim.

 

[a_unique_person]

Care to comment on the hunt for the missing heat due to the Pause / Hiatus ?

Seems its moved on from the Pacific Ocean and it's now believed (according to models) to be hiding in the Indian Ocean

Tracking the Missing Heat from the Global Warming Hiatus

I think it's a great article. It's a shame you will never be able to understand it.

 

[lomiller]

These are monthly averages, no single month can be the "starting point" for anything when the period of significance is three decades.

It may not make sense to do it, but it is what the deniers are doing. For example in the IPCC sceanarioes in the graphic you provided they would do something like this.

1) Look at the averge rate or warming per decade from 2000 - 2100 for the scenario and get a value a little over 0.35 deg/decade.

2) Start from a point in the late 90's where actual temperatures are over the scenario result, and draw a line with that slope. (added in red)

3) Then they go on to draw their own "pause" starting at around the same time "here is the real tend since 2000!" (added in blue)

4) don't show the actual IPCC scenario result and then claim that because their line is over the actual measurement the IPCC is overestimating warming.

The problem is that their representation of the IPCC scenario result is MUCH higher than the actual scenario result at all points.