Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Dave, you by now know what a pedantic old bastard I am! I want to see some actual papers on this, please! We can all of us post stuff on blogs, but without references it is of little value!
Cheers - John
Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming
#42
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
Guess what?; We lucked out! I found not only those professional abstracts that if you have a professional membership grants you access to to the published version, I have also been able to find Drafts and other Studies that support the conclusion of reduced oceanic CO2 uptake.
http://www.sciencema...8/1391.abstract
http://www.carboocea..._1182791535.pdf
http://www.biogeosci...5-1587-2008.pdf
http://www.aoml.noaa...al_TechMemo.pdf
https://www.gfdl.gov...les/jls9102.pdf
http://www.aos.wisc....ton_4_11_08.pdf
Enjoy, I am sure that they will not make the claim that appeared in the media that since 1997 that up to 1/2 of the CO2 uptake in the N. Atlantic has diminished; however, I am comfortable that they will indicate that uptake has been reduced. The last study seems to suggest that the uptake is not as variable as suggested due to warming as much as due to timing. That might be true for biologic processes; however, as to the actual dissolved CO2 going into the boundary layer the biologic timing or quantity is not the issue.
Biologic processes primarily relate to the sequestration of the dissolved CO2 in the ocean. Many like to suggest that the NA CO2 content is due to Meridional Inter-Decadal Over-Turn which ripples from the Arctic to the Antarctic and propagates back up to the Arctic. Generally, if that were true then the C13 levels should track the atmosphere. With the ocean remaining C13 poor suggests that it is more the case of CO2 not going into solution then being sequestered by Biologic processes.
So the idea of ocean acidification by CO2 is clearly in question. If we add to that the issue of total CO2 in the ocean it should also be dropping hence participating in a possible reduction in phytoplankton bloom which does seem to be validated by the final study. Which could all participate in the possible reduction in food resources for Sub-Polar marine life. It is likely the ocean the acidification to be related to Sulfuric emission increases by both soft/dirty fossil fuels and geologic processes. (Note: That the US EPA and now China have both taken drastic steps "voluntarily", to reduce SO2 emissions suggests that this is likely the PH change source.)
Cheers!
Dave
Guess what?; We lucked out! I found not only those professional abstracts that if you have a professional membership grants you access to to the published version, I have also been able to find Drafts and other Studies that support the conclusion of reduced oceanic CO2 uptake.
http://www.sciencema...8/1391.abstract
http://www.carboocea..._1182791535.pdf
http://www.biogeosci...5-1587-2008.pdf
http://www.aoml.noaa...al_TechMemo.pdf
https://www.gfdl.gov...les/jls9102.pdf
http://www.aos.wisc....ton_4_11_08.pdf
Enjoy, I am sure that they will not make the claim that appeared in the media that since 1997 that up to 1/2 of the CO2 uptake in the N. Atlantic has diminished; however, I am comfortable that they will indicate that uptake has been reduced. The last study seems to suggest that the uptake is not as variable as suggested due to warming as much as due to timing. That might be true for biologic processes; however, as to the actual dissolved CO2 going into the boundary layer the biologic timing or quantity is not the issue.
Biologic processes primarily relate to the sequestration of the dissolved CO2 in the ocean. Many like to suggest that the NA CO2 content is due to Meridional Inter-Decadal Over-Turn which ripples from the Arctic to the Antarctic and propagates back up to the Arctic. Generally, if that were true then the C13 levels should track the atmosphere. With the ocean remaining C13 poor suggests that it is more the case of CO2 not going into solution then being sequestered by Biologic processes.
So the idea of ocean acidification by CO2 is clearly in question. If we add to that the issue of total CO2 in the ocean it should also be dropping hence participating in a possible reduction in phytoplankton bloom which does seem to be validated by the final study. Which could all participate in the possible reduction in food resources for Sub-Polar marine life. It is likely the ocean the acidification to be related to Sulfuric emission increases by both soft/dirty fossil fuels and geologic processes. (Note: That the US EPA and now China have both taken drastic steps "voluntarily", to reduce SO2 emissions suggests that this is likely the PH change source.)
Cheers!
Dave
#43
Posted --
A recent one to add. Only the abstract, unfortunately. The full text would be worth getting hold of. There's a week or two's reading mounting up!!
Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification (Pelejero et al 2010)
Discussion that cites the above:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Cheers - John
#44
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
Okay I am byte-ing, what has Paleo-chemistry have to do with the current measured amount of CO2 uptake?
To go further, looking at the study, what has a slug of 5200ya low CO2 water drifting up from Antarctica have to do with the current uptake of CO2?
Going further, based on the CO2 C12/C14 ratios it is clear that over the last 8 years that the amount of biologic CO2 in the deep ocean is also dropping, as it is further diluted by the Paleo-impulses.
Granted the current CO2 levels dissolved in the ocean appears higher over the last decade as opposed to the prior 1,000 decades, so to the amount of oceanic CO2 has not risen nearly as fast as the atmospheric CO2. (Which of course suggests that the CO2 source has to of been isolated from normal oceanic processes, leaving the possibility of either a "Big Burp" or an external CO2 source. Looking at the emissions, it would appear on first blush to of been an external source such as fossil fuels; however, when we look at the biologic uptake and the C12/C13 ratios in the ocean it is clear that the source of the CO2 in the ocean surface waters is unlikely to have a atmospheric signature.)
This then begs the question; Is the reduction in atmospheric uptake responsible for the CO2 "Bloom" in the atmosphere or is there a ancient CO2 source bubbling up out of the ocean. If a "Big Burp" was responsible there should be a "ring of fire" or at least carbon dioxide surrounding the source and it should be fairly constant, having built up over time. This returns us to the basic idea that the source is likely CO2 from fossil fuel emissions. However, it does not invalidate that the warmth we are seeing in the atmosphere is likely due to other processes and not CO2 primarily.
Matter of Fact, 1.84watts of incoming 15um IR is insufficient to heat the ocean/air interface enough to prevent the uptake of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Going further and risk repeating myself, the amount of saturation in the ocean is not anywhere close, even if the atmospheric pressure were to drop to 900pha long term (the estimated decrease in pressure if water vapor increased in the atmosphere and could displace nitrogen, which it does not appear to be able to do).
This leaves a unique and substantial event must of happened to cause the uptake to diminish. If it is similar to the recent land measurements, it has to be that the surface or interface between the air and the ocean has to of been changed. There is only one process occurring today that is unprecedented over the last million years, O3 reduction in the Stratosphere. When we consider that UV has nearly 60 pulses for each IR pulse it would appear on the surface to be nearly 60 times more energetic.
Being a shorter wavelength it does not penetrate as deeply at peak energy as IR radiation, with most of the energy present being dissipated higher in the atmosphere. The problem is we do not see "heat" or IR from the UV in the upper atmosphere. Instead I believe what we get is a failure of water vapor to saturate and precipitate out or even to form clouds. (This is also verifiable with a recent study that suggests that CO2 IR and not UV may be reducing the temperate and ITCZ zone cloud covers. I do not have the URL for that; however, I can find it if necessary...) The end result is a climate change, which when tied into additional IR from CO2 creates more Blocking or Stagnant Highs/Anti-cyclones and hence warmer global average surface temperatures.
(It is likely if O3 were to increase such that the upper tropospheric adiabatic heat were lower, with more clouds, it may be possible the global climate systems could recover. As to CO2, these levels will eventually fall and all of the "horrors" predicted will occur, in a muted fashion, as the cooler ocean surface then begins to sequester more of the atmospheric CO2. However, the conditions are not now present as suggested by the AGW camp and may be reduced slowly and naturally as the Stratospheric Ozone recovers... (We would not want to rush things only to force the systems into failure, better to change fuels and allow the Stratospheric Ozone to rebuild slowly...))
Cheers!
Dave
Okay I am byte-ing, what has Paleo-chemistry have to do with the current measured amount of CO2 uptake?
To go further, looking at the study, what has a slug of 5200ya low CO2 water drifting up from Antarctica have to do with the current uptake of CO2?
Going further, based on the CO2 C12/C14 ratios it is clear that over the last 8 years that the amount of biologic CO2 in the deep ocean is also dropping, as it is further diluted by the Paleo-impulses.
Granted the current CO2 levels dissolved in the ocean appears higher over the last decade as opposed to the prior 1,000 decades, so to the amount of oceanic CO2 has not risen nearly as fast as the atmospheric CO2. (Which of course suggests that the CO2 source has to of been isolated from normal oceanic processes, leaving the possibility of either a "Big Burp" or an external CO2 source. Looking at the emissions, it would appear on first blush to of been an external source such as fossil fuels; however, when we look at the biologic uptake and the C12/C13 ratios in the ocean it is clear that the source of the CO2 in the ocean surface waters is unlikely to have a atmospheric signature.)
This then begs the question; Is the reduction in atmospheric uptake responsible for the CO2 "Bloom" in the atmosphere or is there a ancient CO2 source bubbling up out of the ocean. If a "Big Burp" was responsible there should be a "ring of fire" or at least carbon dioxide surrounding the source and it should be fairly constant, having built up over time. This returns us to the basic idea that the source is likely CO2 from fossil fuel emissions. However, it does not invalidate that the warmth we are seeing in the atmosphere is likely due to other processes and not CO2 primarily.
Matter of Fact, 1.84watts of incoming 15um IR is insufficient to heat the ocean/air interface enough to prevent the uptake of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Going further and risk repeating myself, the amount of saturation in the ocean is not anywhere close, even if the atmospheric pressure were to drop to 900pha long term (the estimated decrease in pressure if water vapor increased in the atmosphere and could displace nitrogen, which it does not appear to be able to do).
This leaves a unique and substantial event must of happened to cause the uptake to diminish. If it is similar to the recent land measurements, it has to be that the surface or interface between the air and the ocean has to of been changed. There is only one process occurring today that is unprecedented over the last million years, O3 reduction in the Stratosphere. When we consider that UV has nearly 60 pulses for each IR pulse it would appear on the surface to be nearly 60 times more energetic.
Being a shorter wavelength it does not penetrate as deeply at peak energy as IR radiation, with most of the energy present being dissipated higher in the atmosphere. The problem is we do not see "heat" or IR from the UV in the upper atmosphere. Instead I believe what we get is a failure of water vapor to saturate and precipitate out or even to form clouds. (This is also verifiable with a recent study that suggests that CO2 IR and not UV may be reducing the temperate and ITCZ zone cloud covers. I do not have the URL for that; however, I can find it if necessary...) The end result is a climate change, which when tied into additional IR from CO2 creates more Blocking or Stagnant Highs/Anti-cyclones and hence warmer global average surface temperatures.
(It is likely if O3 were to increase such that the upper tropospheric adiabatic heat were lower, with more clouds, it may be possible the global climate systems could recover. As to CO2, these levels will eventually fall and all of the "horrors" predicted will occur, in a muted fashion, as the cooler ocean surface then begins to sequester more of the atmospheric CO2. However, the conditions are not now present as suggested by the AGW camp and may be reduced slowly and naturally as the Stratospheric Ozone recovers... (We would not want to rush things only to force the systems into failure, better to change fuels and allow the Stratospheric Ozone to rebuild slowly...))
Cheers!
Dave
#46
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
And again irrelevant.
Nothing you are presenting supports the idea that the current acidification of the ocean is related to CO2, period...
That CO2 acidification does play a part in prior extinction events is possible; however, during the Carboniferous and three other periods the CO2 in the atmosphere was four to five times the current and they did not drive the massive extinctions, though they did provide the carbonate that created widespread massive bands of calcium carbonate along many a coast or shallow continental shelf.
Point being, the measured current state of events do not match the AGW community claims! As to a future possibility, that is possible; however, basic economics of fuel choices will mute that issue. The key now is to move on, to making the future more economically secure by securing a long term energy resource that can sustain current and hopefully future populations of Humans.
Cheers!
Dave
And again irrelevant.
Nothing you are presenting supports the idea that the current acidification of the ocean is related to CO2, period...
That CO2 acidification does play a part in prior extinction events is possible; however, during the Carboniferous and three other periods the CO2 in the atmosphere was four to five times the current and they did not drive the massive extinctions, though they did provide the carbonate that created widespread massive bands of calcium carbonate along many a coast or shallow continental shelf.
Point being, the measured current state of events do not match the AGW community claims! As to a future possibility, that is possible; however, basic economics of fuel choices will mute that issue. The key now is to move on, to making the future more economically secure by securing a long term energy resource that can sustain current and hopefully future populations of Humans.
Cheers!
Dave
#47
Posted --
Not true, Dave - I believe it is important to read right round a subject before coming to conclusions: therefore the past is also vitally important as a key to the present and the future. The same or similar processes have occurred throughout the Phanerozoic: the exceptions being the one you listed - stratospheric O3 removal - and the one you omitted - taking the world's sequestered carbon and burning a lot of it in - geologically speaking - the blink of an eye! The Veron paper in particular I found an excellent review of the causes of mass extinction.
Cheers - John
#48
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
At best if Humans burned every bit of usable carbon in the "Fuel Belt" of the crust it would not do more then triple the current levels and hence, be 1/3 of the highest it has been since blue-green algae emerged and started to bubble out oxygen. Yes, it is supposed to be the greatest amount of carbon in the atmosphere since roughly 65 million years ago. Meaning that the oceans have the potential to rise about 10 meters above current and have significant ebb and floods as the seasons transition.
That still does not change that even with the sun at 5% stronger now then 65 mya and as much as 30% stronger then 3 bya, that the average global temperatures will boil life off of it's face. Nor does it mean that the NH and SH will be isolated from each other because of a No-Mans demarcation line, (Like the Sahara), forming a Northern and Southern ITCZ desert banding the Earth.
The added heat will likely cause the ocean and atmospheric circulations to change; but, it is likely there will be pulses of heat and cool similar to the pre-Holocene climate shifts. It is entirely possible that if excessive volcanic activity were to breakout that a volcanic winter is possible; however, I just do not see it with the cooling of the Earths crust over the last 65 my, it is unlikely that we will see the amount of tectonic change Earth had seen in the past...
Even if you wish to play with the past, it still does not address the issue that reports of the work of some Scientists appear to be misleading. Ocean acidification is happening if the global average PH is dropping 0.2-0.4. When we have direct measured evidence that there is not an increase in dissolved CO2 it seems that Scientists are not telling the truth. This makes me very concerned as this is the very thing that threatens the credibility of all scientists. I think it is time for the science to be clearly heard and that the claims be un-polluted by media or political slant.
Cheers!
Dave
PS: BTW, the URLs I provided earlier do seem to point out that your original statement of CO2 increasing in the oceans is in question.... Would you care to restate your original point or do we want to continue to "wiggle worm" our way around that issue?
ldc
At best if Humans burned every bit of usable carbon in the "Fuel Belt" of the crust it would not do more then triple the current levels and hence, be 1/3 of the highest it has been since blue-green algae emerged and started to bubble out oxygen. Yes, it is supposed to be the greatest amount of carbon in the atmosphere since roughly 65 million years ago. Meaning that the oceans have the potential to rise about 10 meters above current and have significant ebb and floods as the seasons transition.
That still does not change that even with the sun at 5% stronger now then 65 mya and as much as 30% stronger then 3 bya, that the average global temperatures will boil life off of it's face. Nor does it mean that the NH and SH will be isolated from each other because of a No-Mans demarcation line, (Like the Sahara), forming a Northern and Southern ITCZ desert banding the Earth.
The added heat will likely cause the ocean and atmospheric circulations to change; but, it is likely there will be pulses of heat and cool similar to the pre-Holocene climate shifts. It is entirely possible that if excessive volcanic activity were to breakout that a volcanic winter is possible; however, I just do not see it with the cooling of the Earths crust over the last 65 my, it is unlikely that we will see the amount of tectonic change Earth had seen in the past...
Even if you wish to play with the past, it still does not address the issue that reports of the work of some Scientists appear to be misleading. Ocean acidification is happening if the global average PH is dropping 0.2-0.4. When we have direct measured evidence that there is not an increase in dissolved CO2 it seems that Scientists are not telling the truth. This makes me very concerned as this is the very thing that threatens the credibility of all scientists. I think it is time for the science to be clearly heard and that the claims be un-polluted by media or political slant.
Cheers!
Dave
PS: BTW, the URLs I provided earlier do seem to point out that your original statement of CO2 increasing in the oceans is in question.... Would you care to restate your original point or do we want to continue to "wiggle worm" our way around that issue?
ldc
#49
Posted --
Quote
ldavidcooke - 7/2/2011 21:52 Hey John, At best if Humans burned every bit of usable carbon in the "Fuel Belt" of the crust it would not do more then triple the current levels and hence, be 1/3 of the highest it has been since blue-green algae emerged and started to bubble out oxygen. Yes, it is supposed to be the greatest amount of carbon in the atmosphere since roughly 65 million years ago. Meaning that the oceans have the potential to rise about 10 meters above current and have significant ebb and floods as the seasons transition.
Just quickly addressing a couple of points as I have things that need doing! Firstly, I don't see any stable end-point as the problem: rather, the problem is the rate of transition to that state.
Quote
That still does not change that even with the sun at 5% stronger now then 65 mya and as much as 30% stronger then 3 bya, that the average global temperatures will boil life off of it's face.
This is incorrect. At the K-T boundary, solar radiance was at 99% of current levels. It has increased at approx 10%/109 years.
I've plotted it from the start of the Cambrian, using the figure in part 2 of Royer, 2006:
Reference: Royer, D.L. (2006): CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, 5665–5675.
Cheers - John
#50
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
OMG John,
And now you trot out Minority views to support what, a smoke and mirror attempt to move away from the point that your initial statement that CO2 is increasing in the ocean statement is not supportable by actual measures?
As to the Young Sol Paradox, I will not get dragged into this discussion, it is well discussed elsewhere: For instance, http://en.wikipedia...._note-Rosing-16
I'll stick by my initial values for now. Yes, there was a initial brightening and actually a different spectral emission; however, that initial flaring does not last long. Until a steady state circulation is developed, generally most stars are not going to be as efficient in their fusion cycles. Even after what 4.54 By, the ionization currents in Sol do not allow for a steady state; but, a steady cycle of circulation.
Cheers!
Dave
PS: If you would like URLs that demonstrate that the values you have posted appear to be a minority view please look at the bottom of the page I referenced above I believe reference 17 directly relates...
ldc
And now you trot out Minority views to support what, a smoke and mirror attempt to move away from the point that your initial statement that CO2 is increasing in the ocean statement is not supportable by actual measures?
As to the Young Sol Paradox, I will not get dragged into this discussion, it is well discussed elsewhere: For instance, http://en.wikipedia...._note-Rosing-16
I'll stick by my initial values for now. Yes, there was a initial brightening and actually a different spectral emission; however, that initial flaring does not last long. Until a steady state circulation is developed, generally most stars are not going to be as efficient in their fusion cycles. Even after what 4.54 By, the ionization currents in Sol do not allow for a steady state; but, a steady cycle of circulation.
Cheers!
Dave
PS: If you would like URLs that demonstrate that the values you have posted appear to be a minority view please look at the bottom of the page I referenced above I believe reference 17 directly relates...
ldc
#51
Posted --
Quote
ldavidcooke - 8/2/2011 13:23 OMG John, And now you trot out Minority views to support what, a smoke and mirror attempt to move away from the point that your initial statement that CO2 is increasing in the ocean statement is not supportable by actual measures? As to the Young Sol Paradox, I will not get dragged into this discussion, it is well discussed elsewhere: For instance, http://en.wikipedia...._note-Rosing-16 I'll stick by my initial values for now. Yes, there was a initial brightening and actually a different spectral emission; however, that initial flaring does not last long. Until a steady state circulation is developed, generally most stars are not going to be as efficient in their fusion cycles. Even after what 4.54 By, the ionization currents in Sol do not allow for a steady state; but, a steady cycle of circulation. Cheers! Dave PS: If you would like URLs that demonstrate that the values you have posted appear to be a minority view please look at the bottom of the page I referenced above I believe reference 17 directly relates... ldc
Hey Dave,
From the papers I have read, it's not a minority opinion!
Reference 17 cited above addresses the Archaean soils mineralogy problem wrt to the composition of the atmosphere at that time and proposes a very low albedo value as a forcing agent as opposed to insanely high GHG levels in order to satisfy the faint young sun paradox - I only read the same reference a couple of days back. It's certainly one of the areas where one can readily say that the science ain't settled! However, it has nothing to do with your claim (above) of solar luminance being 5% less than the present day 65 million years ago at the KT Boundary - it is that claim that is clearly a minority view!
Cheers - John
#52
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey All,
Actually I just thought of something that will make all of the uncertainty over CO2 flux causing Global Warming a mute point. If anyone can provide long term proof that between 18kya and 11kya that the average atmospheric CO2 levels were below 140ppm then regardless of any orbital or other effects there would be direct proof that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can result in colder surface temperatures.
This would suggest that the atmospheric CO2 value would have to be 1/2 of the current, reflected in the oceanic carbonate deposits and hence, a global 3 Deg. C cooler environment. This coupled with the two large Earth landmasses which cycled up to 50% being above the surface of the ocean over the past 65my would be sufficient to equate to the differences we are seeing currently.
I suspect that it is unlikely that the ice record will support this possibility and hence would seem to suggest that CO2 does not drive the change from "Green House" to "Ice House" and back. I suspect that Global Warming mechanisms are driven by a different process and would more likely be related to atmospheric water content and possibly resulting from changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation, with these circulations being driven primarily by aerosols and clouds. Sorry, if this cannot be proven (-CO2="IH"), beyond a shadow of a doubt, the +CO2="GH" theory has to be considered questionable.
Cheers!
Dave
Actually I just thought of something that will make all of the uncertainty over CO2 flux causing Global Warming a mute point. If anyone can provide long term proof that between 18kya and 11kya that the average atmospheric CO2 levels were below 140ppm then regardless of any orbital or other effects there would be direct proof that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can result in colder surface temperatures.
This would suggest that the atmospheric CO2 value would have to be 1/2 of the current, reflected in the oceanic carbonate deposits and hence, a global 3 Deg. C cooler environment. This coupled with the two large Earth landmasses which cycled up to 50% being above the surface of the ocean over the past 65my would be sufficient to equate to the differences we are seeing currently.
I suspect that it is unlikely that the ice record will support this possibility and hence would seem to suggest that CO2 does not drive the change from "Green House" to "Ice House" and back. I suspect that Global Warming mechanisms are driven by a different process and would more likely be related to atmospheric water content and possibly resulting from changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation, with these circulations being driven primarily by aerosols and clouds. Sorry, if this cannot be proven (-CO2="IH"), beyond a shadow of a doubt, the +CO2="GH" theory has to be considered questionable.
Cheers!
Dave
#53
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
Okay maybe Impact Winter due to the Chicxulub Impact and in association with the Deccan Trap eruptions may be a Minority view. Though many have assigned a value of 10-20% of solar irradiance reduction for a period ranging from 6 months to 12 years, I was quite willing to accept that the reduction globally was more likely 5%. I based the idea of a change in insolation in part on the Foraminifera record. The indications being that the most successful K-T transitioning species were the cold water versions.
Matter of fact, when we look at the fossil record it did appear that there was massive incursions of polar versions moving southward. (Likewise elsewhere there are also examples of Southern species moving northward, during warming periods.) The real question is were these changes driven by thermal or light/food source changes.
Most of the record does support that there were terrestrial changes that coincided with marine changes. However, when looking at the O18 and O16 isotope record there seems some discontinuity. This is made even worse when we look at high latitude fossil records. Though many appear to want to jump to a mantle CO2 outgassing, (as in the URL below), I wonder if this is an accurate observation? Could it be that the issue was not a warming event; but, a cooling event, based on the idea that species that made the transition or appear that the successful cross-overs were either were carnivorous scavengers or polar natives. The former suggesting a reduction in light in the Tropics and the later suggesting that the Chicxulub Impact was a non-global event.
When looking at the record of the time the biggest indication is that the sea level dropped, which would be in agreement with a reduction in CO2 or an increase in SO2. It is very likely that a Maastrichtian Sea Level Regression event may have been related to increased SO2 and hence lower temperatures and lower Sunlight for a much longer period than that proposed by a short term Impact Winter event. The end result is not so much that it was a long term Global Winter as much as it was more of a long term Volcanic cooling with the duration being long enough to both change species sedimentation and their locale for a long enough period to leave a fossil record of the change. Hence, my "minority" conclusion, that there had to of been a long term low level global solar reduction of around 5%. It is likely until the dust settles around the Alvarez Theory that we may not get a clear global view of events. Hence, regarding K-T solar levels we will just have to agree to disagree for now.
Cheers!
Dave
foraminifera record : http://fossil.earths...jfr34_85-95.pdf
Changes in the original 2004 foram record ref from: http://http-server.c...ns/2002_04.html ;in association with above URL
Maastrichtian Sea_Level or was it Coastal Shelf Marine Reduction: http://schools-wikip...ction_event.htm
Okay maybe Impact Winter due to the Chicxulub Impact and in association with the Deccan Trap eruptions may be a Minority view. Though many have assigned a value of 10-20% of solar irradiance reduction for a period ranging from 6 months to 12 years, I was quite willing to accept that the reduction globally was more likely 5%. I based the idea of a change in insolation in part on the Foraminifera record. The indications being that the most successful K-T transitioning species were the cold water versions.
Matter of fact, when we look at the fossil record it did appear that there was massive incursions of polar versions moving southward. (Likewise elsewhere there are also examples of Southern species moving northward, during warming periods.) The real question is were these changes driven by thermal or light/food source changes.
Most of the record does support that there were terrestrial changes that coincided with marine changes. However, when looking at the O18 and O16 isotope record there seems some discontinuity. This is made even worse when we look at high latitude fossil records. Though many appear to want to jump to a mantle CO2 outgassing, (as in the URL below), I wonder if this is an accurate observation? Could it be that the issue was not a warming event; but, a cooling event, based on the idea that species that made the transition or appear that the successful cross-overs were either were carnivorous scavengers or polar natives. The former suggesting a reduction in light in the Tropics and the later suggesting that the Chicxulub Impact was a non-global event.
When looking at the record of the time the biggest indication is that the sea level dropped, which would be in agreement with a reduction in CO2 or an increase in SO2. It is very likely that a Maastrichtian Sea Level Regression event may have been related to increased SO2 and hence lower temperatures and lower Sunlight for a much longer period than that proposed by a short term Impact Winter event. The end result is not so much that it was a long term Global Winter as much as it was more of a long term Volcanic cooling with the duration being long enough to both change species sedimentation and their locale for a long enough period to leave a fossil record of the change. Hence, my "minority" conclusion, that there had to of been a long term low level global solar reduction of around 5%. It is likely until the dust settles around the Alvarez Theory that we may not get a clear global view of events. Hence, regarding K-T solar levels we will just have to agree to disagree for now.
Cheers!
Dave
foraminifera record : http://fossil.earths...jfr34_85-95.pdf
Changes in the original 2004 foram record ref from: http://http-server.c...ns/2002_04.html ;in association with above URL
Maastrichtian Sea_Level or was it Coastal Shelf Marine Reduction: http://schools-wikip...ction_event.htm
#54
Posted --
Ah - I think we've been at crossed purposes here - you were talking radiance, in terms of energy hitting Earth's surface? I was talking luminance - the "strength" of the sun itself!
Cheers - John
#55
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
I was aware of that, as I believe you were as well. Well, kind of, the value of luminance in the Majority view is that the Sun has been steady state before it reached Main Sequence. I think that this does not match up well with the evidence.
(We only have about 1000 years of observation with only about 500y of instrument assisted and 20 years of satellite. Given this the line of evidence for both is far too short to be certain, though it is likely that a combination of spectrum, mass, distance, size and age to develop a fairly solid Astronomical theory. I am of the opinion, unsupported though it may be, that there has to of been a dramatic luminance shift in spectrum and intensity over time. At the time of shorter spectral emission there was likely a shift in the atmospheric optical depth at different frequencies compared to today's insolation spectral bands. I believe that many of the photo-mineral generation ambiguities and later organic development patterns may be related.)
As to CO2 and the air/ocean interface, I just am trying to offer an out..., if you wish...
Cheers!
Dave
I was aware of that, as I believe you were as well. Well, kind of, the value of luminance in the Majority view is that the Sun has been steady state before it reached Main Sequence. I think that this does not match up well with the evidence.
(We only have about 1000 years of observation with only about 500y of instrument assisted and 20 years of satellite. Given this the line of evidence for both is far too short to be certain, though it is likely that a combination of spectrum, mass, distance, size and age to develop a fairly solid Astronomical theory. I am of the opinion, unsupported though it may be, that there has to of been a dramatic luminance shift in spectrum and intensity over time. At the time of shorter spectral emission there was likely a shift in the atmospheric optical depth at different frequencies compared to today's insolation spectral bands. I believe that many of the photo-mineral generation ambiguities and later organic development patterns may be related.)
As to CO2 and the air/ocean interface, I just am trying to offer an out..., if you wish...
Cheers!
Dave
#56
Posted --
No - it was your "even with the sun at 5% stronger now then 65 mya" comment that had me thinking you meant luminosity!
Anyway, there's a stack of reading from the links you provided so I'll have to get stuck into that the next few days [y]
Cheers - John
#57
Posted --
Fantastic debate happening. Good work. It is time some truth came out... Its a shame its all too complicated to the uneducated mind like mine.
#58
Posted --
Just looking through the literature linked to above, Dave. I'll paste three of the "meaty bits" from the abstracts:
Watson et al 2009 - observations indicating substantial variability in the CO2 uptake by the North Atlantic on time scales of a few years
Schuster & Watson MS - Additionally, there has been an inter-decadal decline, evident throughout the study region 11
but especially significant in the northeast of the area covered, with the sink reducing 12
>50% from the mid-nineties to the period 2002-2005....Declining rates of 16
winter-time mixing and ventilation between surface and subsurface waters due to 17
increasing stratification, linked to variation in the North Atlantic Oscillation, are 18
suggested as the main cause of the change. These are exacerbated by a contribution from 19
the changing buffer capacity of the ocean water, as the carbon content of surface waters 20
increases.
Perez et al2008 - The North Atlantic Oscillation shift
from a positive to a negative phase in 1996 led to a reduction of the air-sea heat loss in
the Labrador Sea. The consequent convection weakening accompanied by an increase 10
in stratification lowered the effciency of the northern North Atlantic CO2 sink.
All studies are focussed on the North Atlantic, and they find variations in CO2 uptake, driven over periods of a few years by NAO variations and affected by buffering as seawater chemistry changes.
Firstly, this ought to be expected as solubility of atmospheric CO2 will vary according to influences such as sea temps - which in turn are influenced by climatic patterns such as the NAO/AO and the new kid on the block, the Arctic Dipole pattern.
Secondly, the studies cited concentrate on one area of ocean, that has quite a temperature range at surface via a number of influences. I would want to see data from the Caribbean, the Tropical Pacific & Indian Oceans, the variabilities caused by ENSO, what goes on in the Southern Ocean and so on.
Therefore, I think it is a major "leap of faith" to go from that to your conclusion: "So the idea of ocean acidification by CO2 is clearly in question. If we add to that the issue of total CO2 in the ocean it should also be dropping hence participating in a possible reduction in phytoplankton bloom which does seem to be validated by the final study."
This table is quick & dirty and comes from the Wikipedia Ocean Acidification page - so of course the usual caution is required and I too need to check it is properly referenced. Anyway:
| Time | pH | pH change | Source | H+ concentration change relative to pre-industrial |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-industrial (18th century) | 8.179 | 0.000 | analysed field[3] | 0% |
| Recent past (1990s) | 8.104 | -0.075 | field[3] | + 18.9% |
| Present levels | ~8.069 | -0.11 | field[4][5][7][12] | + 28.8% |
| 2050 (2×CO2 = 560 ppm) | 7.949 | -0.230 | model[2] | + 69.8% |
| 2100 (IS92a)[13] | 7.824 | -0.355 | model[2] | + 126.5% |
Maybe it's the hydrogen ions we should be worried about!!
Geologically rapid seawater chemistry changes, including the pH reduction discussed here, that move faster than evolution can keep up with, are a severe risk in terms of mass-extinctions of marine life.
Parts of the conclusion of Veron (2008) - link above - are perhaps worth repeating:
If acidi?cation was in fact a major cause of mass
extinctions and reef gaps as the above discussion sug-
gests, prospects for the future are frightening, not because
of any immediate impact on corals, but because of
commitment. Commitment embodies the concept of
unstoppable inevitability, according to which the nature
and health of future environments will be determined, not
by our actions at some future date but by what is hap-
pening now. The oceans, including the ocean depths,
respond slowly to atmospheric conditions, whether a
temperature increase or a CO2 build-up, which means that
the full effects of acidi?cation will take decades to cen-
turies to develop. Nevertheless, this is only a delay: the
factors causing acidi?cation will have irretrievably com-
mitted the Earth to the process long before its effects
become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass
bleaching today......
.....The levels of CO2 and pH predicted by the end of this
century may not have occurred since the Middle Eocene,
but the all-important rate of change we are currently
experiencing has no known precedent. There can be no
evolutionary solution for such a rate of change.
Ultimately—and here we are looking at centuries rather
than millennia—the ocean pH will drop to a point at which
a host of other chemical changes, including anoxia, would
be expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the
end of K/T, or something like it, will become a reality and
the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction. Another 1–3
decades like our last will see the Earth committed to a
trajectory from which there will be no escape.
Such words may attract the "alarmist" tag, but the more I read, the more I think we have every reason to be alarmed. I say again that it is not the endpoint that matters - at some time geologically soon (few million years), in the absence of fossil fuel burning, we would likely head back to a stable hothouse lasting tens of millions of years in which, given a slow natural transition, evolution would handle things as it has done in the past. Instead, it is the speed at which we are setting the transition in motion. That is what appears to be unprecedented.
Cheers - John
#59
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey John,
Well I did say in an earlier post over the last few days that if the ocean/air interface were to change that there was a chance of greater CO2 to go into the ocean. Also, as to the window of sampling being limited to both regional measures and a window of about 8 years for an inter-decadal oscillation may be too small to suggest that this is a global indicator.
Tweet, we have a flag on the play; If it were the case that the measures are too insignificant, then the AGW community should not have jumped on it as another warning that the global oceans were becoming both more acidic and saturated with CO2.
TWeet, another flag on the play; Before anyone starts sending up Emergency Flares we can go look at the amount of CO2 that went into the oceans during the previous epochs when the CO2 values were 9 times greater then today and see how much the marine deposits were "harmed" by the high atmospheric CO2 content... Oh, that has already been done, and guess what..., yep, species did change..., very slowly, while the biodiversity expanded greatly during these same periods...
Seems that the data is not in alignment with the theory that CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm significantly acidify the oceans... Matter of fact, looking at the ocean sedimentary record just prior to the K-T Boundary actually seemed to indicate that CO2 was at it's lowest level in the atmosphere at the same time there appears to be acidification in the ocean... Hmmm, a little counter intuitive it seems..., can't wait for the next novel...
Cheers!
Dave
Well I did say in an earlier post over the last few days that if the ocean/air interface were to change that there was a chance of greater CO2 to go into the ocean. Also, as to the window of sampling being limited to both regional measures and a window of about 8 years for an inter-decadal oscillation may be too small to suggest that this is a global indicator.
Tweet, we have a flag on the play; If it were the case that the measures are too insignificant, then the AGW community should not have jumped on it as another warning that the global oceans were becoming both more acidic and saturated with CO2.
TWeet, another flag on the play; Before anyone starts sending up Emergency Flares we can go look at the amount of CO2 that went into the oceans during the previous epochs when the CO2 values were 9 times greater then today and see how much the marine deposits were "harmed" by the high atmospheric CO2 content... Oh, that has already been done, and guess what..., yep, species did change..., very slowly, while the biodiversity expanded greatly during these same periods...
Seems that the data is not in alignment with the theory that CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm significantly acidify the oceans... Matter of fact, looking at the ocean sedimentary record just prior to the K-T Boundary actually seemed to indicate that CO2 was at it's lowest level in the atmosphere at the same time there appears to be acidification in the ocean... Hmmm, a little counter intuitive it seems..., can't wait for the next novel...
Cheers!
Dave
#60
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted --
Hey Andrew,
Sorry, this was supposed to be simply a matter of policing ourselves; however, it appears we may have let it overload the Forum...
I was hoping we could have kept it at a general conversation level and well it ramped up a bit... I will suggest to John we take the scientific part to the Climate Analysis and Discussion Forum; however, feel free to ask questions or suggest your own insights here.
After all if you have an interest and want to explore Earth Science subjects is the intent for this Forum. It may not seem that we do a very good job keeping it simple; but, we will try, please bare with us, we will try to get it right eventually...
Cheers!
Dave
Sorry, this was supposed to be simply a matter of policing ourselves; however, it appears we may have let it overload the Forum...
I was hoping we could have kept it at a general conversation level and well it ramped up a bit... I will suggest to John we take the scientific part to the Climate Analysis and Discussion Forum; however, feel free to ask questions or suggest your own insights here.
After all if you have an interest and want to explore Earth Science subjects is the intent for this Forum. It may not seem that we do a very good job keeping it simple; but, we will try, please bare with us, we will try to get it right eventually...
Cheers!
Dave
