Phil’s Dad - 30 December 2009 06:13 PM

By GW-er success I take it you mean reductions in world temperatures as a result of lower CO2 levels. Many a GWD would drop the D if there was any - any - sign of GW-er success.

Oh.  No.  Cynically, I just meant political success in passing the laws.

sale no mobārak

Thanks!  A Happy Julian New Years to you as well!

Also, did you mean mo’alem as in Japanese “sensei?”

Phil’s Dad - 30 December 2009 06:25 PM

As for which cop might change their mind - if we reduce CO2 back to, say, 280ppm and temperatures continue to rise; one of them might at least pause for thought.

It’s sweet that you still have hopes of this being an evidence-based endeavour.  Either side will be able to interpret this to their advantage.  Humans are a clever lot.

Rezwan - 30 December 2009 07:43 PM

Also, did you mean mo’alem as in Japanese “sensei?”

Yes, which correction nicely proves my point. 

Opps!  It looks like a lynch-pin of AGW may be nothing more than wishful thinking.  Specifically, that mankind has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which was claimed as a cause of global warming.  The following article presents evidence that no increase occurred.  Obviously, reasons for taking to control developed countries economies need to be re-thought…

——-
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere…

continues in,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Pat

mchargue - 31 December 2009 10:55 PM

The following article presents evidence that no increase occurred.

In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere…

As I understand it the article says the portion of what is emitted that stays in the atmosphere is not increasing, the total amount is still increasing as we pump it out faster than it breaks down (or is taken up by the sinks mentioned).

What the GW camp find difficult to explain at the moment is that, despite the continued increase ppm of CO2 staying in the atmosphere, temperatures have not risen for a decade or more. One scientist (as you know) described it as a travesty that they can’t explain it.

Deeper in the article appears…
——-
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
——

If the airborne fraction is not increasing, then there is no increase.  After all, we’re not getting more atmosphere.

On the whole, the article seems to engage in editorializing by saying that (anonymous) scientists think that the fraction MAY be increasing.  However, the published article just states that the fraction has been stable over the time period of the assessment.  Sticking to facts, as opposed to faith, CO2 is a non-issue w.r.t. GW.

I wonder if further refutations will employ similar anonymous (un-sourced) voices as their principal means of proof.

Pat

P.S.  Especially interesting to me was that this study was a contradiction to other studies.  I guess ‘scientific consensus regarding AGW’ is a really big tent! /sarcasm

I am afraid that is just sloppy journalism Pat. 

According to (another Pat?) Pat Michaels at World Climate Report:

“Dr. Knorr carefully analyzed the record of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and anthropogenic land-use changes for the past 150 years. Keeping in mind the various sources of potential errors inherent in these data, he developed several different possible solutions to fitting a trend to the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. In all cases, he found no significant trend (at the 95% significance level) in airborne fraction since 1850.

(Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years)”

Here’s a link to the original paper hosted by another site

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

Rezwan thinks it sweet that I still believe in an evidenced based outcome to the (still very much alive) GW debate.
Sweet though I undoubtedly am , if there is any chance of the truth prevailing then, when we are presented with a piece of actual science, we must read what is there rather than what we want to see.

I read the entire paper.  From the conclusions comes,
——-
From what we understand about the underlying
processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
the available data and its accuracy.
——-

It seems clear that the author is talking about the a atmospheric fraction (AF) that is ‘nearly constant’ since the start of industrialization.  All the talk about increases seems to be speaking to the increase in the amount of CO2 industrialization injects into the atmosphere, and to the amount of natural sequestration that’s taking place.

The take-away point seems to be that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly constant, and has been for some 150 years.

Pat

The fraction of anthopogenic CO2 (AF = Anthopogenic Fraction) that remains in the atmosphere has been constant - not quite the same thing.

In Dr Knorr’s own words:

“Half the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere…”
(Roughly)

His graph is attached. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (as determined from ice cores, thin dotted lines, and direct measurements, thin black line) has remained constantly proportional to the annual amount of CO2 released by human activities (thick black line). The proportion is about 46% (thick dotted line). (Figure source: Knorr, 2009)

You will note that all lines in his graph are increasing

But being a simple minded fellow I like to think of these things on a human scale. Here’s how I explained it to myself.

If I could borrow Rezwan’s aircon bucket for a minute.

* Put the plug in the bath. (The bath is my analogy for the atmosphere)
* Fill a bucket (Say 2 gallons) with water (Analogy for our emitted CO2).
* Carry the full bucket up all those stairs. (Obscure reference - ignore)
* Pour half of it down the sink and the rest into the bath.
* Result 50% taken up by the sink and 50% in the bath/atmosphere. (AF=50%)
* Or 1 gallon down the sink and 1 gallon left in the bath.

* Next day, fill the bucket, climb the stairs, pour half down the sink and half into the bath.
* Result 50% taken up by the sink and 50% in the bath/atmosphere. (AF=50%)
* Or, on day two, 1 gallon down the sink and 2 gallons left in the bath. Yesterday’s gallon is still there. (ppm doubled)

The proportion of our emitted CO2 that is taken by the sink or poured into the bath/atmosphere has remained the same at 50% but the amount now in the bath/atmosphere has risen and will continue to rise as long as we go on filling/lugging buckets (emitting). 

This is what the paper is saying.

Atmospheric CO2 is rising at (constantly) about half the rate we are emitting it. Whether that matters is a whole different discussion.

if there is any chance of the truth prevailing then, when we are presented with a piece of actual science, we must read what is there rather than what we want to see.

By all means.

Phil’s Dad - 02 January 2010 01:11 AM

if we reduce CO2 back to, say, 280ppm and temperatures continue to rise; one of them might at least pause for thought.

You see how speculative this is.  “if we reduce…” Good luck with that.  You’ll have to actually go along with the GW-ers, get that c02 down, and then wait a few years (or decades, or more, they’ll come up with something) for the lag time…who will even remember what the argument was about then? 

I’ll try to keep a straight face, but I can’t imagine evidence based outcomes.  This field is as fantastically uncorroborable for me as economics.  And the emotions and passions both fields excites is fascinating.  I shall leave it to more patient/impassioned people to discuss.

This reminds me of that book, “Chasing the Monsoon” - a travel writer follows the monsoon through India.  Among other things, he talked about the impact of this seasonal weather event on Indian politics.  Politicians rise and fall with the rain (late, early, too much, too little, favoring one district over another).  Because people blame politicians for the weather.  And now, here’s a chance for politicians to try and control the weather.  So they try.

Or, this is like a somnambulist who awakens to find himself juggling chainsaws on a tightrope, 50 feet above the ground and no net.  And then realizes he has no idea how to juggle chainsaws.  Good luck with controling the weather….

Rezwan - 03 January 2010 01:47 AM

Phil’s Dad - 02 January 2010 01:11 AM

if we reduce CO2 back to, say, 280ppm…

You see how speculative this is.  “if we reduce…”

Hypothetical. I don’t actually expect it to happen. It’s just that if it did…

...and then wait a few years (or decades, or more, they’ll come up with something) for the lag time…who will even remember what the argument was about then?

Could be as much as 800 years due to deep ocean turnover. Don’t s’pose I’ll be around.

Just for the record I see nothing in policy - currently proposed or in place - locally, regionaly, nationally or internationally - that is likely to control the worlds weather / temperatures / climate.

From the introduction:
——-
Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted
annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities
[Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40%
[Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the
rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about
equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]. This airborne fraction
of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed
remarkably constant over the past five decades [Jones and
Cox, 2005], but if it were to increase in a way predicted by
models, this could add another 500 ppm of CO2 to the
atmosphere by 2100 [Friedlingstein et al., 2006], significantly
more than the current total.
——-

From my reading, I see that the airborne fraction is (remarkably) constant.  That is to say, the same.  If the fraction is not changing, then it’s not increasing.  I can see where the verbiage about ‘40% remaining in the atmosphere’, though, might make it sound like we’re adding 40% or our total CO2 production to the atmosphere each & every year.  However, if that were the case, then the fraction would be changing - which is a point the authors seem to making.

Failing a chance to speak with the author, I think we’re stuck with our interpretations.  I hope that more evidence - one way of the other - comes out soon.

Pat

mchargue - 04 January 2010 06:07 AM

“This airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed
remarkably constant…”

From my reading, I see that the airborne fraction ...? is (remarkably) constant…”

Can you see what you are missing.

(Go back and review the buckets analogy)

A constant fraction of what we emit is being absorbed but the rest is still being added to the overall total.

Time would be better spent discusing what effect it will have, if any.

Here’s an entry from another (sketical) blog talking about and entry on an AGW blog. (wonderful thing the web)

Realclimate.org stated in their latest blog:

“a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly),”

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two in layman’s terms? I would ask on the RC blog but the comments thread is ridiculously long.

[REPLY - In this case, RC is right. All the study claims is that 60% of what is being emitted is being reabsorbed (either immediately or over time), and that this percentage is not decreasing because the sinks are reaching their ‘capacity” to absorb. The other 40% accumulates. An estimated 8 BMTC (anthropogenic) per year is emitted, and atmospheric carbon is c. 770 BMTC or so. So CO2 atmospheric carbon (at 40% of 8) goes up by a little under half a percent per year. Now my contention is that CO2 does not have the effect (esp. re feedbacks) that RC claims it has, but that is a separate argument. ~ Evan

Phil’s Dad - 24 December 2009 03:13 AM

By the way there is nothing “Scientific” about “Consensus”
Scientific Consensus said the world was flat for a very long time.
Scientific Consensus said the Universe went round the Earth
Scientific Consensus said… (add your own)

Scientific consensus is right nearly all the time. Atomic theory of matter? Newton’s first law? The existence of Neptune? Structure of DNA? All part of scientific consensus. We remember the exceptions because they’re rare. It takes a revolution to overthrow scientific consensus.