study documents relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

[Trakar]

study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level - New study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

By comparing reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level over the past 40 million years, researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have found that greenhouse gas concentrations similar to the present (almost 400 parts per million) were systematically associated with sea levels at least nine metres above current levels.
The study determined the 'natural equilibrium' sea level for CO2 concentrations ranging between ice-age values of 180 parts per million and ice-free values of more than 1,000 parts per million.
It takes many centuries for such an equilibrium to be reached, therefore whilst the study does not predict any sea level value for the coming century, it does illustrate what sea level might be expected if climate were stabilized at a certain CO2 level for several centuries.
Lead author Dr Gavin Foster, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton which is based at the centre, said, "A specific case of interest is one in which CO2 levels are kept at 400 to 450 parts per million, because that is the requirement for the often mentioned target of a maximum of two degrees global warming."

Rest of article at title link.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 lag temperature.

Lags

Lags

That's a very bad and silly study

 

[skookerasbil]

study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level - New study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

By comparing reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level over the past 40 million years, researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have found that greenhouse gas concentrations similar to the present (almost 400 parts per million) were systematically associated with sea levels at least nine metres above current levels.
The study determined the 'natural equilibrium' sea level for CO2 concentrations ranging between ice-age values of 180 parts per million and ice-free values of more than 1,000 parts per million.
It takes many centuries for such an equilibrium to be reached, therefore whilst the study does not predict any sea level value for the coming century, it does illustrate what sea level might be expected if climate were stabilized at a certain CO2 level for several centuries.
Lead author Dr Gavin Foster, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton which is based at the centre, said, "A specific case of interest is one in which CO2 levels are kept at 400 to 450 parts per million, because that is the requirement for the often mentioned target of a maximum of two degrees global warming."

Rest of article at title link.

s0n........I dont think you have enough propaganda threads going in this forum. Only 9 threads started on this page alone!!! Check it out......you cant make this shit up.


If there is such "consensus" on the science, why is it the most radical of the environmentalists fall all over themselves posting up 10-12 new threads/day!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 lag temperature.

Lags

Lags

That's a very bad and silly study

Very bad and stupid Frankie Boy for posting nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 lag temperature.

Lags

Lags

That's a very bad and silly study

Very bad and stupid Frankie Boy for posting nonsense.

CO2 lag temperature on the increase and decrease.

 

[Old Rocks]

See the end of the graph? That red spike.Now look at the blue line. Where the hell is the spike in the blue line?

And note that the temperature has been higher on the graph before than it is now, yet there has never been the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the period on the graph that there is now.

Not only that, but that is an older graph, for the CO2 is nearly at 400 ppm at present.

That graph shows the natural order when the Milankovic Cycles were driving the heating and cooling. Today, it is man's addition of GHGs that is driving the changes in temperature in the atmosphere and ocean.

And the very graph you put up demonstrates that, for there is no blue spike preceding the red spike. And, in the future, you will see a blue spike trailing the red spike.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See the end of the graph? That red spike.Now look at the blue line. Where the hell is the spike in the blue line?

And note that the temperature has been higher on the graph before than it is now, yet there has never been the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the period on the graph that there is now.

Not only that, but that is an older graph, for the CO2 is nearly at 400 ppm at present.

That graph shows the natural order when the Milankovic Cycles were driving the heating and cooling. Today, it is man's addition of GHGs that is driving the changes in temperature in the atmosphere and ocean.

And the very graph you put up demonstrates that, for there is no blue spike preceding the red spike. And, in the future, you will see a blue spike trailing the red spike.

The spike at the end of the blue line covers .001% of the timeline.

See the 8% increase in temperature that preceded the run up in CO2?

See CO2 lagging it

 

[SSDD]

study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level -

Melting ice indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures plus melting ice equals rising sea level. Rising sea level indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperature indicates warmer oceans...wait for it...........wait for it.................wait for it......................


WARMER OCEANS CAN HOLD LESS ABSORBED CO2 THAN COLDER OCEANS THEREFORE WARMER OCEANS OUTGASSING CO2 RESULT IN HIGHER ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WHICH IS WHY CO2 LAGS INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE.

 

[Trakar]

study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level -

Melting ice indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures plus melting ice equals rising sea level. Rising sea level indicates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperature indicates warmer oceans...wait for it...........wait for it.................wait for it......................


WARMER OCEANS CAN HOLD LESS ABSORBED CO2 THAN COLDER OCEANS THEREFORE WARMER OCEANS OUTGASSING CO2 RESULT IN HIGHER ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WHICH IS WHY CO2 LAGS INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE.

Simple physics supports the generality. Specifically, however, we are quite familiar with and capable of identifying the ocean's absorption and emission rates, and identifying the source of atmospheric CO2 according to the isotopic ratios of its composition. Currently the ocean is a net CO2 sink, absorbing much of all the CO2 humanity is emitting. The warming oceans are not yet adding more CO2 than they are absorbing.

References:
"Oceanic sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2"
http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/menemenlis/articles/co2_source-sink_pp.pdf

"The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2"
http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf

"Uptake and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: The Global C02 Survey" - http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/14_4/14_4_feely_et_al.pdf

(more references available upon request, discussion welcome)​

 

[SSDD]

Oceanic sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2"

Output of computer models masquerading as actual science.

"The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2

Compuer model output masquerading as actual science.

"Uptake and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: The Global C02 Survey" -

Output of computer models masquerading as actual science.

By the way, till you get over your font fetish, I won't be responding to your posts....not worth the effort of wading through all the formatting. If you believe you can dress up your posts with enough fancy fonts to make them palatable, it isn't working. You can put as much liptsick on a pig as you like but it remains a pig and you can "font" up all your research you like, but it remains nothing more than the output of woefully inadequate computer models.

If climate science ever comes up with something real, let me know. Of course if they ever start using real data, the AGW hoax will be at its end.

 

[Trakar]

By the way, till you get over your font fetish, I won't be responding to your posts....not worth the effort of wading through all the formatting. If you believe you can dress up your posts with enough fancy fonts to make them palatable, it isn't working. You can put as much liptsick on a pig as you like but it remains a pig and you can "font" up all your research you like, but it remains nothing more than the output of woefully inadequate computer models.

Not sure what you are ranting about, but please feel free to continue on your adolescent tantrums and attempts to distract from the actual and compelling evidences presented, it only reflects upon your own petulant arrogances.

Until you start providing some compelling support for your assertions, your posts really contain little of value anyway, it is up to you whether or not you want to continue to sling ignorance and idiocy or discuss the topic in a reasoned and rational manner. Beyond that, I could really care less whether or not you respond to any of my posts.

 

[SSDD]

Trakar - computer modelling is fine if, and that is a very large IF you have a firm handle on the thing you are modelling. Models that attempt to identify how much of our CO2 for example ends up in the ocean are meaningless unless, for example, you know how much CO2 enters the ocean via underwater geothermal activity. Do you believe for a second that we even know how much underwater geothermal activity is going on, much less how much CO2 it is putting into the oceans?

If so, then you are even more a victim of the hoax than I had previously thought. We may have a firm enough handle on traffic for civil engineers to model traffic patterns to predict the best routes for roads and where improvements should be made, but insofar as the climate goes, we haven't even scratched the surface.....there is far to much that we don't know to even pretend to be able to accurately model any climate system...

Hell we can't even model the weather with any sort of consistent accuracy and the weather is far less complex than the climate. Climate models may represent somthing like actual science to the computer industry in that they actually use the information taught in schools, but the output of those models does not represent science or actual research insofar as the science of the climate goes. We just don't know enough to begin to model the actual climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf

Recognizing the need to constrain the oceanic uptake, transport, and storage of anthropogenic CO2 for the anthropocene and to provide a baseline for future estimates of oceanic CO2 uptake, two international ocean research programs, the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Joint
Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS), jointly conducted a comprehensive survey of inorganic carbon distributions in the global ocean in the 1990s (4). After completion of the U.S. field program in 1998, a 5-year effort was begun to compile and rigorously quality-controlincluding a few pre-WOCE data sets in regions that were data limited (5). The final data set consists of 9618 hydrographic stations collected
on 95 cruises, which represents the most accurate and comprehensive view of the global ocean inorganic carbon distribution available (6). As individual basins were completed, the ocean tracer– based C* method (7) was used to separate the anthropogenic CO2 component from the measured DIC concentrations (8–10). Here we synthesize the individual ocean estimates to provide an ocean data-constrained global estimate of the cumulative oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 for the period from 1800 to 1994 (11).

Real time observations. Now where are your sources for the flap-yap that you continue to do, SSDD?

 

[SSDD]

http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf

Recognizing the need to constrain the oceanic uptake, transport, and storage of anthropogenic CO2 for the anthropocene and to provide a baseline for future estimates of oceanic CO2 uptake, two international ocean research programs, the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Joint
Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS), jointly conducted a comprehensive survey of inorganic carbon distributions in the global ocean in the 1990s (4). After completion of the U.S. field program in 1998, a 5-year effort was begun to compile and rigorously quality-controlincluding a few pre-WOCE data sets in regions that were data limited (5). The final data set consists of 9618 hydrographic stations collected
on 95 cruises, which represents the most accurate and comprehensive view of the global ocean inorganic carbon distribution available (6). As individual basins were completed, the ocean tracer– based C* method (7) was used to separate the anthropogenic CO2 component from the measured DIC concentrations (8–10). Here we synthesize the individual ocean estimates to provide an ocean data-constrained global estimate of the cumulative oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 for the period from 1800 to 1994 (11).

Real time observations. Now where are your sources for the flap-yap that you continue to do, SSDD?

What is the total amount of CO2 disolved into the oceans via underwater geothermal activity rocks? If you can't answer that question precisely, then none of your models have any meaning. They are no more than guesses.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf

Recognizing the need to constrain the oceanic uptake, transport, and storage of anthropogenic CO2 for the anthropocene and to provide a baseline for future estimates of oceanic CO2 uptake, two international ocean research programs, the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Joint
Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS), jointly conducted a comprehensive survey of inorganic carbon distributions in the global ocean in the 1990s (4). After completion of the U.S. field program in 1998, a 5-year effort was begun to compile and rigorously quality-controlincluding a few pre-WOCE data sets in regions that were data limited (5). The final data set consists of 9618 hydrographic stations collected
on 95 cruises, which represents the most accurate and comprehensive view of the global ocean inorganic carbon distribution available (6). As individual basins were completed, the ocean tracer– based C* method (7) was used to separate the anthropogenic CO2 component from the measured DIC concentrations (8–10). Here we synthesize the individual ocean estimates to provide an ocean data-constrained global estimate of the cumulative oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 for the period from 1800 to 1994 (11).

Real time observations. Now where are your sources for the flap-yap that you continue to do, SSDD?

What is the total amount of CO2 disolved into the oceans via underwater geothermal activity rocks? If you can't answer that question precisely, then none of your models have any meaning. They are no more than guesses.

A few months ago, it turns out the UNDERESTIMATED the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans by a whole order of magnitude.

Did that change their models?

Nah

Can you imagine a financial analyst present a plan that shows, say an after tax 10% ROI, then is told he left out a 50% tax, so he just represents the exact same model?

Only AGW works like that. Only AGW. It's not science, it's a cult

 

[Trakar]

Trakar - computer modelling is fine if, and that is a very large IF you have a firm handle on the thing you are modelling. Models that attempt to identify how much of our CO2 for example ends up in the ocean are meaningless unless, for example, you know how much CO2 enters the ocean via underwater geothermal activity. Do you believe for a second that we even know how much underwater geothermal activity is going on, much less how much CO2 it is putting into the oceans?

We can estimate to within an fraction of an order of magnitude this volume of CO2, and this is good enough for general carbon sink calculations. Better information might make for more precise calculations and assessments, but the uncertainty is small enough that it would not significantly alter current understandings and calculations. Geothermal activity on the seafloor may be hidden from direct human observation, but this does not mean that it is unaccounted for or unmeasurable. All geothermal activity generates seismic activity and acoustic activity these are measurable and directly correlate to general emission scales. In general, volcanic activity worldwide, both above and below the sea account for approximately 222 Megatonnes of CO2 annually. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are approximately 35 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year (~160x volcanic CO2 emissions annually). ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf )
There would literally need to be hundreds of M. Pinatubo scale eruptions annually on the seafloor before seafloor geothermal emissions reached the level of major significance in such considerations. If that were occurring GHG emissions probably wouldn't be the major concern.

If so, then you are even more a victim of the hoax than I had previously thought. We may have a firm enough handle on traffic for civil engineers to model traffic patterns to predict the best routes for roads and where improvements should be made, but insofar as the climate goes, we haven't even scratched the surface.....there is far to much that we don't know to even pretend to be able to accurately model any climate system...

Your understandings are simply inaccurate.

Hell we can't even model the weather with any sort of consistent accuracy and the weather is far less complex than the climate.

Completely backwards.

Weather is very complex and difficult involving a lot of constantly changing and interacting variables, about like trying to locate, track and identify all of the gas molecules in the atmosphere inside of room as the molecules interact with the enclosing surfaces, are heated by light fixtures, and bounce off of each other, and then trying to identify precisely how many gas molecules will collide with a given square millimeter of wall space in a femtosecond at some specific future point in time. Climate is a much more generalized handling of relatively few composite variables in a statistical averaging of means to establish general trend-means over an extended time frame. Weather is like defining the specific temp. at a specific location and time. Climate is more akin to saying that higher latitudes are generally cooler than lower latitudes and summer is generally warmer than winter.

Climate models may represent somthing like actual science to the computer industry in that they actually use the information taught in schools, but the output of those models does not represent science or actual research insofar as the science of the climate goes. We just don't know enough to begin to model the actual climate.

This is simply inaccurate.

NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

(a few simple illustrations)

Tutorial on Climate Prediction

Tutorial #2 on Climate Forecast/Prediction

Climate Modelling

Modeling Climate

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Climate Modeling 101

(more involved and indepth references available upohn request)

 

[skookerasbil]

Trakkar s0n......this is about the 25th thread you've started since the new year, which last I checked is only about 1/2 a month old. Whats up with that?

Is there any point to the volume of threads here? Just a bit curious........especially considering that those who are responding to them are publically humiliating you at every turn.

 

[SSDD]

We can estimate to within an fraction of an order of magnitude this volume of CO2, and this is good enough for general carbon sink calculations.

Good enough for climate science computer modelling you mean...

Let me know when you get some actual hard proof to support your claims.

 

[Trakar]

We can estimate to within an fraction of an order of magnitude this volume of CO2, and this is good enough for general carbon sink calculations.

Good enough for climate science computer modelling you mean...

Let me know when you get some actual hard proof to support your claims.

I have provided scientifically substantive and compelling references in support of my positions and statements for the benefit of anyone else who may read these posts and chose to further research these issues for themselves; your estrangement from, and rejection of, reality is of little concern to me.