[Andy Mayhew]

Vill: the simple fact is that however much CO2 is naturally released into the atmosphere, if additional CO2 - which would not have been released naturally - is added to that as a result of human activity then human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Perhaps you can explain why you think there has been a steady increase in CO2 over the past century? And why all the CO2 released by human activity does not add any into the atmosphere?

It doesn't matter whether the equation is (2345 + 4520) - 5234 or (6517 + 1126) - 3226, if you add another sum to the equation, the balance will be a higher figure.

We have detailed calculation showing how much extra CO2 has been released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity. We have detailed measurements which show that much of that CO2 is not retained in the atmosphere - ie it's sequestered by natural processes. But not all of it is sequestered.

A huge natural increase in CO2 into the atmosphere (volcanic activity for example) will result in an increase if that amount cannot naturally be sequestered straight away. But such natural processes do not happen year after year after year after year.

Unless you can demonstrate a purely natural processes that adds CO2 year on year into the atmosphere over a 100 year period, and that humans are not adding CO2 year on year into the atmosphere, the conclusion is patently obvious.

The issue of whether this increase has as yet had an impact on climate, or even whether it will in the future, is of course a different issue.

[Peter H]

Quote

Village - 17/10/2007 11:23

Andy,

I know the theory that CO2 is only increasing because humans are adding and therefore its only our fault that the world is warming. However, the only evidence is coincidental. You know that 97% to 98% of all annual CO2 contributions are natural and that even our best estimations of this annual total are very inaccurate because of the unjustifiable sequestered and then released CO2. Its further less likely because the amount of natural annual variation is at least 10%.

News to me. I don't accept that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 varies by 10% annually around it's current figure of ~380ppmv ppm (ie up to ~418 or down to ~352). That is, unless you can show me figures it does...

Quote

Therefore the annual natural variation alone dwarfs our tiny contribution without even allowing for old released previously sequestered CO2 that we cant quantify.

Its far more likely that the increase is due to so much global deforestation over the centuries. Why can it not be this if you are so certain that its nothing to do with the huge and variable natural CO2?

Oil and coal are the remains of the growth of forests over millennia if not millions of years. Burning oil and coal is like burning not one forest but thousands of forests.

[Andy Mayhew]

Quote

Village - 17/10/2007 10:23

Andy,

You know that 97% to 98% of all annual CO2 contributions are natural and that even our best estimations of this annual total are very inaccurate because of the unjustifiable sequestered and then released CO2. Its further less likely because the amount of natural annual variation is at least 10%. Therefore the annual natural variation alone dwarfs our tiny contribution without even allowing for old released previously sequestered CO2 that we cant quantify.

So why does atmospheric CO2 rise year on year?  Why does the rise coincide with human industrial output?

Why do all the experts agree the rise is due to human activity?  Including most of those who dispute that this increase is affecting climate?

Quote

Village - 17/10/2007 10:23

Its far more likely that the increase is due to so much global deforestation over the centuries. Why can it not be this if you are so certain that its nothing to do with the huge and variable natural CO2?

I beleive it is, partly at least.

But it seems then that you do accept there's an increase due to human activity after all - so what are we arguing about?   :D  

 

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Peter;

I think what Vill was trying to relate was along the lines of what I had shared earlier. It is not 10% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, but, 10% of the CO2 exchanged by the biospheric processes every year. In short, the change between the minimum and maximum annual deviation or about 3.4ppm as seen here: http://cdiac.ornl.go...o2/maunaloa.co2 .

There should be variations around the annual CO2 respiration in accordance with natural variation. And the graph that this data feeds does not demonstrate this deviation to my eye. Now that does not mean that I have no bias; but, I would expect variations in the peaks and valleys of the respiration and I do not see the expected asymmetrical indications of it.

Dave

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Andy;

Your questions are what we would like to answer as well. However, I and others are not going to jump up and say the sky is falling simply because a leaf falls from a tree and partially shades the site of the sky from our eyes. Also, I request that you do not get me wrong, I am an avid environmentalist and strong alternative energy advocate. However, I desire strict integrity in thought and presentation of data. I too may fail to maintain the desired integrity, that is why as we jointly search for answers, the diversity of opinions and observations that can be found here are so important. (PS: Snow, thanks; but, I only attempt to maintain the integrity based on the stated intent for this forum. (Note: Succinct is not a common word usually paired with my musings.) )

Granted there is a lot of contribution by the human animal; however, it has not significantly changed in the last 100 years averaged over the population count. (Yes I know this flies in the face of an earlier position I shared and I will explain it further.) In essence, humans have always had the need for a carbon based energy source. Whether it was for heat or meat up until about 1000 (AD). It was during this time frame the beast of burden was changing from the backs of man to the backs of the beasts. The luxury of owning a animal simply for the purpose of transport or bearing burden was an outgrowth of the use of such beasts for the purpose of war. (When the war ended what did you do with the animals...)

Hence, there were increases in the population of the beasts of burden that exceeded the normal populations. It is this difference due to the husbandry of humans that begins to add to the carbon increase to the atmosphere. When you add in the increase in human population an the increase in beast of burden population to meet the needs of the humans you begin to increase the amount of conversion of the surface bearing carbon to atmospheric due to two things one the removal of the carbon from the natural soil sequestration and two you interject an increase in the rate of the release of carbon oxides into the atmosphere. That the increase in mankind's populations began to exceed the surface capacity to provide for the carbon needs of man he began to locate alternatives to meet these needs. Hence, the turn to sequestered fuels such as peat and mulch. When this proves in effective, we then find the resources that had been laid aside many millions of years ago and we begin to return to the a small portion of the original CO2 it contained, (coal). We got to the point we no longer needed as much of the surface carbon; hence it could return to the soil if necessary. But, alas, the populations of man decided to undertake to produce foods in excess of what they actually needed and partially used this to increase the capabilities of their beast of burden and partially in trade with those who did not have the capacity to raise foods for themselves. (The merchants would have starved had there not been the opportunity for trade.)

This demand to provide foods in excess of substance driven by the increasing human population began to encroach on the increased soil carbon content and was accompanied by the reduction of trees to meet the demand for foods stuffs. In short, with the growth of capitalism also began the artificial changes in natures respiration of CO2. When the refuse from the beasts of burden became an issue and the technology started to develop due to the industrial revolution ("ir"), (Keeping in mind that the start of the "ir" was the production of cloth driven by water wheels and not steam engines.) It was not until the
turn of the 20th century that factories became more dependent on coal reserves rather then wood reserves or running water locations. Part of this was due to the change in the US to begin to follow mother Britain in the production of steel for it's ships of war and eventually its tall buildings. With the increase demand for coal for heating for the increasing populations, with the demand for the energy to convert iron oxide ore to iron and then to carbon steel, with the demand to change from a transportation system that the waste product did not pile up into vast mountains on the perimeter of the towns and cities

However, by this time vast natural expanses of regions that would sequester atmospheric carbon were disappearing and the global CO2 respiration signature began to modify. It is unlikely that the increase in the atmospheric carbon can be directly related to the addition to the fossil fuel generation of 100 years as much as it was the change in the natural sequestration of the carbon cycle that has had the impact we see today. A mere 40 years of 5-7.5Gt of carbon by human fossil fuel burning is a drop in the bucket compared to the losses in the natural carbon cycle over the last 1000 years.

So you ask the obvious question, if the problem is not due to humans adding to the problem then what is driving the CO2. That is where the new research is so important. Dr. Mason and I had a brief discussion about two months ago in regards to the Chalk deposits and his comment was that the calcium content of the oceans was very high. However, the value was static. If indeed there was an increase in the CO2 I would have expected the calcium would have countered the increase, until I discovered that the majority of the calcium was locked up in a carbon compound already. So this then drove a little more research. It appears there are vast turnovers of calcium, carbon and oxygen at tectonic boundaries. The thought had been could this be a major source. When I look at the data of the geologic generation of gases they are even less then those added by humans. So the issue is not that there is more CO2 being added; but, less being removed in my opinion. However, the amount that is present is the result of the necessary amount to maintain the human animal.

The basic argument is whether or not the rapid increase in CO2 is due to increased demand of fossil fuel carbon or due to other processes. So far we are only accurate in the ascertaining of the carbon flow of humans. We need additional detailed data as to the carbon respiration of nature before we get out our sack cloths and ashes... In the meantime, we should be doing everything reasonable to reduce our carbon footprint where we can. And where we can't, try to make it a conscious decision of whether or not this is a necessary polluting activity.

Dave

[brshort716]

I have all these ideas floating in my head and no good way to express them!!

David, I think what you say makes a lot of sense, and I don't think the bath analogy is the best thing.

But as to the title of the thread, of course it is possible that some degree of the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is due to ocean warming. Warm water doesn't absorb CO2 as readily, so it leads to a positive feedback. Also, the processes in the ocean that convert CO2 into Calcium Bicarbonate lose efficiency as more CO2 becomes available to convert.

So, as we pump more Co2 into the atmosphere, the planet warms and warms the oceans faster than they can take up the Co2, so the warmer water absorbs less, allowing the CO2 concentration int he atmosphere to rise faster, given constant emissions. Beyond that, the natural absorption rate of the ocean declines as you put more into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the rise in Co2 concentrations even more.

The real danger here is that as Calcium and carbon dioxide interact and form Calcium bicarbonate, there is less calcium available for plankton to properly develop. Since plankton are the major primary food source of the food chain of the ocean, their health is vital. In an acidified ocean, plankton will be fewer and poorly developed ultimately affecting the entire food chain.

So, as CO2 concentrations rise, it becomes more and more important for other sources to remove Co2 from the atmosphere, like forests. Forests add water vapor and warm the climate even more.

But David brings up a good point. There are other processes that can certainly affect our climate independently and alter it significantly. The earth's climate is never in balance, and if it was, we wouldn't be here. The Pacific ocean has cooled over the past few years, and it will likely continue to cool because China is spewing huge clouds of SO2 into the atmosphere which is blocking solar radiation to the Pacific. The cooler Pacific ocean will likely allow further absorption of CO2 into the ocean. This could also favor more La-Nina conditions which would simply enhance this process.

There's just SO MUCH to think about!

[ldavidcooke]

Hey BRShort;

In regards to your statement, "The real danger here is that as Calcium and carbon dioxide interact and form Calcium bicarbonate, there is less calcium available for plankton to properly develop. Since plankton are the major primary food source of the food chain of the ocean, their health is vital. In an acidified ocean, plankton will be fewer and poorly developed ultimately affecting the entire food chain."

Please keep in mind the issue of the likelihood of where plankton blooms usually occur. Generally in the open ocean they seem to concentrate in the downwind regions of large bays and estuaries or the North Eastern boundary of large ocean basins (Between 12 and 42 Deg N). It almost always appears that where there is a turnover in bottom and surface waters, where there is cycling of carbon and other nutrients.

Also, there is the issue of massive plankton blooms happening under the cover of ice. The issue I see is in relation two things, one is if the primary limitation were due to the carbon content the likelihood of fast moving ocean currents having the higher CO2 content acidification is greater then slow moving or deep water currents. The second issue is the marked reduction in plankton in the Arctic region, except under the ice.

The first issue leads me to mention observations regarding what is happening in the Arctic region. If the warming and the associated ice melt were more due to air temperatures then the likelihood of the waters in the ice floe regions should be slow and low in added CO2 acidity. On the other hand, if the warming were due to ocean currents then there is the possibility of rapid currents and high CO2 acidity. The reason for bringing up this subject is to introduce the issue of why there would be plankton blooms and sea life flourishing under the ice floes.

We need to consider and study why this is occurring, is the plankton bloom under the ice due to the rapid moving, CO2 heavy water, laden with nutrients? If so then the CO2 acidity is a dead fish. On the other hand if the the water is slow moving under the ice then the CO2 acidity hypothesis could hold water. But, we have other variables as well, not only do you have the issue of CO2 concentrations and nutrient issues we have water temperature issues. If the water is cool or is saline is plankton going to be more or less likely to flourish. Then we have my favorite consideration, what if the limiting factor for marine life is the added UV energy reaching the top few feet of the ocean. (Based on the UV energy ionizing the plankton and reducing the population.) In short, there are many variables we need to consider and to jump to the obvious ones without testing bothers my sensibilities.

Yes, there are many variables and many things we need to consider and no single individual is going to have the capacity to keep them all in the air. The problem when you form a committee to gather and report on data there are many hidden agendas; hence why I post here. Here there is no political wrangling for importance or the overloading or dodging of responsibility. There are no deadlines or requirements to even report on the derived consensus. Here we are free to exchange view points and try to learn from each other, at the same time float trial balloons.

I can share a technique that may help if you have difficulty in putting your ideas together. First try to at least capture the seed of the idea. If you get an idea try to write it out at the time it occurs to you. in a text file. Maybe as you look through the science periodicals you may find something of interest book mark it, or copy the URL to your notebook (.txt) file. Overtime you will find that you have a large collection of useful ideas or thoughts and then you can start to try to organize them. You will be amazed at how well all of those ideas in your head can be linked to stories or works of others. Once you have this you have the vehicles to make even the most inane idea to have a bit of punch... 666

Dave Cooke

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Vill;

I guess that depends if you are bending the links to meet the idea of the idea to meet the data in the links. As long as the idea conforms with the facts and the facts are not bent to support the idea then I disagree. However, if as you observe that folks try to take data and bend it to their idea or philosophy then it becomes a matter of a lack of integrity IMHO. The building on other persons works is also how science is advanced. We currently, "Stand on the Shoulders of Giants", let it always be so.

Your issue is the exact reason why so often I come off as as skeptic, though I am an avid tree hugger. I am still hoping to get a county waver to allow me to construct and operate my Cooke AquAero Motor, Vertical Axis, Articulated Blade, Gyro Turbine. I also would like to get a US Government test waver to attempt to test the marine version in the Beaufort Inlet off the coast of Morehead City here in North Carolina. But, as my health is receding my options to follow through on these two experiments are going the way of the Do-Do.

Hence, I am restricted to rants regarding the integrity of thought and presentation here on UKweatherworld and continued attempts to reduce my carbon footprint. In the meantime, if I can assist others who would like to be active in sharing their insights, you better believe I will suggest a means to help them achieve it. I count on others such as Peter and yourself to keep the insights honest. (By the development of consensus among the diverse viewing points, (as opposed to points of view), the truth will emerge.)

Dave Cooke

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Vill;

Well I don't know that I do that good of a job; however, everyone here helps to keep me on the straight and narrow.

As to the tidal Marine project the total cost and waiver is 200 times more difficult to achieve and take nearly 2 years to complete, and will require hiring a General Contractor and work crew (for the actual six weeks of construction) while getting inspections and certifications from the US Corp of Engineers and the Coast Guard, plus the location is nearly 400 miles away.

A simple 30 foot tower producing 1/425th the energy of the equivalent of the marine project, can be set up in about three weeks by friends and family in my back yard. I doubt I would be around long enough to get the tidal project completed. The primary roadblock to the wind machine is the funds and payback are a poor application of funds my bride would need after I was gone. (A solar solution would cost two to three times as much as the wind project.)

Dave

[Andy Mayhew]

Quote

Village - 18/10/2007 11:40

Dave,

Thats how the Manmade climate theory has managed to gain so much ground. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has used other peoples works and ideas and so as you say; they "have the vehicles to make even the most inane idea to have a bit of punch".

Its called making the data fit the story. ;)

Works both ways. And that's why the so-called sceptics have failed to change opinion - they make the data fit their story .... ;)  

As for using other people's works and ideas, what do you think Einstein and Hawking did?   :-)   

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Vill;

I would wish! No, at most it would be as a proof of concept, where I would assign licensing rights over to the US Government
DOE for further development or license distribution. I do not have the resources nor the talent sets to exploit my designs for my own entertainment, umm, ...err, ahhh..., satisfaction. That I have been working on the design since 1978 simply goes to suggest it was only a pipe dream anyway.

The 20'x40' wind turbine was to provide 3kw in 9.6km/hr winds and over 24kw in 19km/hr winds was an interesting original design target. The lining of the NC sounds with the marine version with each producing about 150kw each with a current rate of 4.5km/hr or 1.25m/sec was my next target. The estimated number that could be placed on the banks of the sound was approximately 20 units with the total output of 3Gw. Considering the major inlets and estuaries along the NC coast, the total energy we could have hoped to extract from the tides was approximately 50Gw.

If this design was extended northward through Maine the total energy goes up by a factor of 8 for every 200 miles of shore line or roughly a total of about 5000Gw if we used the entire Eastern US coast (staging one device per every 3200 feet or roughly every 950 meters) or 5 Nuclear power plants and about 10% of the east coasts requirements. Now if we lined the rivers and streams we might be able to extract another 5000Gw east of the Mississippi for a total of about 25% of the East Coasts requirements. (Not near enough to wipe out the necessity of fossil fuels.)

Dave Cooke

[Metragirta]

No. Ocean warming is not the cause for the actual CO2 increase in atmosphere. Of course that ocean warming has an effect, but a very slight one. By the way, do you think that oceans, all the oceans, are really warming? It is not true for North Pacific.

We can produce some “fireworks” to know how carbon cycle is, and how CO2 we emit incorporates in Carbon Cycle.

From Mauna Loa and Emission time series we can easily know the % of the CO2 we emit that incorporates to atmosphere. Then we can compare it with a natural process with a huge repercussion in global temperatures and precipitations, ENSO, for instance.

In Oceans-atmosphere carbon cycle will depend mainly of temperatures but in biosphere-atmosphere via photosynthesis and respiration, it will depend on both temperatures and precipitations.

You can see in the graph that there is a good correlation (0,51) between % CO2 in Mauna Loa from emissions and ENSO. There are three gaps: Agung (1962-1964); Chinchón ( 1982-1984) and Pinatubo ( 1991-1994) eruptions. I have lagged ENSO one year because the remote effects take a long time to happen.

That could be a good picture of how carbon cycle works:

In years of a intense Niño event (1973, 1988 and 1998), with higher global temperatures and some drought nearly all the CO2 we emit remain in the atmosphere and sometimes it results that it’s bigger than emission. So oceans and biosphere are realising CO2 to atmosphere.

In Years of an intense Niña event (71-72 & 74-75), with cooler global temperatures and more global precipitations, less than a 30 % of the CO2 we emit remains in atmosphere. So both Oceans and biosphere are capturing CO2.

Now if we look on the graph ENSO & Global Temperatures we can see clearly three periods. They are not casual periods.

1. - 1960-1975: AMO switching and entering in its negative phase and PDO negative. Temperatures maintain in nearly neutral anomalies, but are lower that in all the other periods

2. - 1975-1995: AMO negative and PDO positive. Temperatures start climbing.

3. - 1995-2005: Both AMO and PDO positive. There is a big climb in temperatures.

So, now we only have to see the media of ENSO, temperatures, CO2 anomalies in Mauna Loa, and % of emitted CO2 remaining in atmosphere, for each one of this periods.

There is a very slight difference, nearly a 4 % when both AMO and PDO are negative, and so oceans are colder, and when both of them are in the positive phase, and so oceans are warmer. Conclusion: actual CO2 increase in atmosphere has nothing to do with a possible Ocean warming, the difference in each phase, warm or cool, could be of only 3-4 ppm (4% of 200 GtC). It has to do with anthropogenic emissions.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

Here is a quote from Metragita regarding the potential CO2 out gassing. The bottom line was if it were out gassing the isotope balance would unlikely be shifting. This would appear to suggest that it is more likely a reduction in uptake. There are also other discussions regarding saturation levels if you wish, the bottom line being the the oceans are far from saturation.

We also have yet to discuss the geologic calcium carbonate deposits from the Carboniferous and if they indicate high dissolved C13 signatures.

Cheers!
Dave

Quote

Metragirta - 27/10/2007 07:13

No. Ocean warming is not the cause for the actual CO2 increase in atmosphere. Of course that ocean warming has an effect, but a very slight one. By the way, do you think that oceans, all the oceans, are really warming? It is not true for North Pacific.

We can produce some “fireworks” to know how carbon cycle is, and how CO2 we emit incorporates in Carbon Cycle.

From Mauna Loa and Emission time series we can easily know the % of the CO2 we emit that incorporates to atmosphere. Then we can compare it with a natural process with a huge repercussion in global temperatures and precipitations, ENSO, for instance.

In Oceans-atmosphere carbon cycle will depend mainly of temperatures but in biosphere-atmosphere via photosynthesis and respiration, it will depend on both temperatures and precipitations.

You can see in the graph that there is a good correlation (0,51) between % CO2 in Mauna Loa from emissions and ENSO. There are three gaps: Agung (1962-1964); Chinchón ( 1982-1984) and Pinatubo ( 1991-1994) eruptions. I have lagged ENSO one year because the remote effects take a long time to happen.

That could be a good picture of how carbon cycle works:

In years of a intense Niño event (1973, 1988 and 1998), with higher global temperatures and some drought nearly all the CO2 we emit remain in the atmosphere and sometimes it results that it’s bigger than emission. So oceans and biosphere are realising CO2 to atmosphere.

In Years of an intense Niña event (71-72 & 74-75), with cooler global temperatures and more global precipitations, less than a 30 % of the CO2 we emit remains in atmosphere. So both Oceans and biosphere are capturing CO2.

Now if we look on the graph ENSO & Global Temperatures we can see clearly three periods. They are not casual periods.

1. - 1960-1975: AMO switching and entering in its negative phase and PDO negative. Temperatures maintain in nearly neutral anomalies, but are lower that in all the other periods

2. - 1975-1995: AMO negative and PDO positive. Temperatures start climbing.

3. - 1995-2005: Both AMO and PDO positive. There is a big climb in temperatures.

So, now we only have to see the media of ENSO, temperatures, CO2 anomalies in Mauna Loa, and % of emitted CO2 remaining in atmosphere, for each one of this periods.

There is a very slight difference, nearly a 4 % when both AMO and PDO are negative, and so oceans are colder, and when both of them are in the positive phase, and so oceans are warmer. Conclusion: actual CO2 increase in atmosphere has nothing to do with a possible Ocean warming, the difference in each phase, warm or cool, could be of only 3-4 ppm (4% of 200 GtC). It has to do with anthropogenic emissions.