What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?

[Old Rocks]

CO2 residence time is short and meaningless. The vast majority of evidence says that the CO2 levels are increasing because of the warmth not causing it.



Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

Robert H. Essenhigh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784
DOI: 10.1021/ef800581r
Publication Date (Web): April 1, 2009
Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society

Abstract:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

CO2 has a short residence time


The claim goes like this:

(A) Predictions for the Global Warming Potential (GWP) by the IPCC express the warming effect CO2 has over several time scales; 20, 100 and 500 years.
(B) But CO2 has only a 5 year life time in the atmosphere.
(C) Therefore CO2 cannot cause the long term warming predicted by the IPCC.
This claim is false. (A) is true. (B) is also true. But B is irrelevant and misleading so it does not follow that C is therefore true.

The claim hinges on what life time means. To understand this, we have to first understand what a box model is: In an environmental context, systems are often described by simplified box models. A simple example (from school days) of the water cycle would have just 3 boxes: clouds, rivers, and the ocean.

A representation of the carbon cycle (ignore the numbers for now) would look like this one from NASA.

 

[Old Rocks]

Revisiting the source of the observed CO2 rise : A Few Things Ill Considered

1) Oxygen decrease

Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is going up. Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% that we are in no danger of running out; the change in oxygen simply shows that whatever the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, the carbon part of it has come from the oxidation of reduced carbon compounds and the oxygen has come from oxygen gas in the atmosphere. That is, the extra CO2 was not released in the form of CO2 from an unknown source but instead some reduced carbon compound was burnt in the atmosphere to produce CO2. See: AR3WG1 Section 3.5.1, especially Figure 3.4.


2) Known fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the CO2 in the atmosphere has to also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 known to be released by fossil fuel burning each year goes.

Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at about 2 ppmv per year (or 16 billion tonnes). That is, only around half of the CO2 we release remains in the atmosphere. The pH decrease in the oceans corresponds to most of the "missing" CO2, so we can also be confident that land use changes etc are not a major source/sink. Caveat: Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough.

In summary: (amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere + the amount of increased CO2 in the oceans) = (amount of known fossil fuel emissions of CO2).

 

[Zander]

Just one question for you Old Rocks: When you are swilling down the Globull Warming Kool Aid , do you drink it at body temperature? I hear that you mix it with baking powder (for the proper consistency) and squirt in on your face - in 5 to 7 one ounce spurts per serving.

 

[edthecynic]

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Let's try using some simple numbers.

If there are 100 units of GHG, then 95 units will be water vapor and 5 units of other GHGs. If CO2 increases the other GHG's total by 1 unit to 6 units then total GHGs would have to increase to 120 units for water vapor to remain at 95%.

So for every unit of increase in CO2, water vapor must increase 19 units to maintain the 95% to 5% ratio.

 

[JBeukema]

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.

You realize, of course, that the air can only hold a finite amount of water vapour, right?

 

[JBeukema]

Just one question for you Old Rocks: When you are swilling down the Globull Warming Kool Aid , do you drink it at body temperature? I hear that you mix it with baking powder (for the proper consistency) and squirt in on your face - in 5 to 7 one ounce spurts per serving.

A brilliant and well-spoken argument

 

[Zander]

Just one question for you Old Rocks: When you are swilling down the Globull Warming Kool Aid , do you drink it at body temperature? I hear that you mix it with baking powder (for the proper consistency) and squirt in on your face - in 5 to 7 one ounce spurts per serving.

A brilliant and well-spoken argument

There is a an old Italian saying that says - "When you wash the head of a jackass, you waste both time and soap".

I don't argue with Evangelical Environazis like Old Rocks, they are jackasses.

 

[konradv]

What is Earth's "correct" temperature?

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Whatever Al Gore needs it to be to still make the billions he set himself up to get if we buy into his lying ass, drama queen, phony made-up bullshit.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

 

[IanC]

At least we have satellite data now. The actual temp doesn't matter, just the fluctuations.

Hey Old Rocks- do you have a link to the feud between Willson and Lean over the 'corrections' made to the raw satellite data? Was it ever settled? The satellite guys seemed pretty pissed that their info was being manipulated without their consent or imput.

Under a Variable Sun : Feature Articles

Thanks again Old Rocks. I came to this debate late in the game because I assumed that the question was basically too complex to figure out with any certainty and that every area of science involved would overstate their importance and accuracy. So far all the evidence seems to support my position.

My other assumption was that Occam's Razor would end up victorious in the end. The sun is by many orders of magnitude the most important factor in climate. Very small changes in the sun's output will make large changes here. I am actually quite shocked at the level of information we have about the sun's variability, perhaps caused by the high cost of instruments, getting them into high orbit, and lack of multitasking ability. From what I have read the sun could easily be the reason for most of the recent change. Add the flawed(actually just incomplete) understanding of local climate interactions and I feel comfortable in my original conclusions.

That said, I can understand your position of concern. It takes proponents of many sides to get closer and closer to the truth.

 

[Old Rocks]

The controversy between Willson and Lean is over a decade old. And all the present graphs that I trust, those of NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, show a decline, very small, but a decline none the less, for the last 50 years. Thus far, no one has been able to show me why a decline in the TSI should result in further warming.

In fact, 2008 should have been a very cold year. One that was in the bottom 10 for warmth, not in the top ten. A very strong solar minimum with virtually no sunspots, a strong La Nina. But, depending on the record keepers, it ranked as either the tenth or eight warmest on record. And the next year, 2009, tied for second warmest. This is not indictutive of the TSI being the cause of the present warming. The primary change that we have seen is the additional GHGs that we have added to the atmosphere. And the physics of the additional GHGs state that we should be seeing that warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just one question for you Old Rocks: When you are swilling down the Globull Warming Kool Aid , do you drink it at body temperature? I hear that you mix it with baking powder (for the proper consistency) and squirt in on your face - in 5 to 7 one ounce spurts per serving.

A brilliant and well-spoken argument

There is a an old Italian saying that says - "When you wash the head of a jackass, you waste both time and soap".

I don't argue with Evangelical Environazis like Old Rocks, they are jackasses.

You don't argue because you have no means of argueing. No evidence is on your side, just idiotic mindless Conservative talking points. You know full well that were to debate this problem on it's scientific basis you would get your pantyass butt kicked.

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.

You realize, of course, that the air can only hold a finite amount of water vapour, right?

A finate amount at a given temperature. The higher the temperature, the more water it will hold. And the more that will fall out in a given storm. That fallout can be either snow or rain.

 

[edthecynic]

At least we have satellite data now. The actual temp doesn't matter, just the fluctuations.

Hey Old Rocks- do you have a link to the feud between Willson and Lean over the 'corrections' made to the raw satellite data? Was it ever settled? The satellite guys seemed pretty pissed that their info was being manipulated without their consent or imput.

Under a Variable Sun : Feature Articles

Thanks again Old Rocks. I came to this debate late in the game because I assumed that the question was basically too complex to figure out with any certainty and that every area of science involved would overstate their importance and accuracy. So far all the evidence seems to support my position.

My other assumption was that Occam's Razor would end up victorious in the end. The sun is by many orders of magnitude the most important factor in climate. Very small changes in the sun's output will make large changes here. I am actually quite shocked at the level of information we have about the sun's variability, perhaps caused by the high cost of instruments, getting them into high orbit, and lack of multitasking ability. From what I have read the sun could easily be the reason for most of the recent change. Add the flawed(actually just incomplete) understanding of local climate interactions and I feel comfortable in my original conclusions.

That said, I can understand your position of concern. It takes proponents of many sides to get closer and closer to the truth.

Except the Sun's total energy output is slowly declining as it fuses together the nuclei of light elements and is left with non-fusible heavier matter, yet temps are increasing.

Will the Sun's decline affect climate change?

There are other means to study solar activity prior to the space age, including sunspot counts and cosmic ray falls recorded in tree trunks, which fluctuate with the strength of the Sun's magnetic filed and solar wind. These indicate that there is a greater, underlying cycle of grand maxima and minima in solar activity, stretching over centuries. One famous grand minimum was the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715, which coincided with a mini ice-age in Europe, and the River Thames freezing over. Lockwood says that we are actually still in a grand maximum, but not for long. "I predict that we'll fall out of grand maximum before 2020," he claims. Certainly, sunspots numbers have been dropping since 1985, the solar flux peaked in 1987, and the solar wind pressure has fallen, so this decline has been occurring for some time and we're only really beginning to notice. Would this be enough to counter rising temperatures and climate change here on Earth?

"There is certainly no evidence yet that there is a turning off of global warming because of solar activity," says Lockwood. Global temperatures do vary slightly over relatively short timescales, and so far there has been no slowing down of rising temperatures beyond this expected short fluctuations and Lockwood is even sceptical that a grand minimum would make much difference against the onslaught of climate change.

 

[rdean]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

 

[daveman]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

Not science. Scientists. And they get millions in grant money. Those who support their work use it to advance their agenda of greater government control over individual lives. That's why every proposed "solution" is some form of wealth redistribution.

Funny how the cultists insist "Follow the money!!" when it comes to skeptics, but not to fellow cultists, hmmm?

 

[ekiosity]

The correct temperature is like 80 degrees with very little humidity. Unless I'm surfing or something. Then it could be warmer, depending on water temperature. Man, this IS hard. I'm glad we have scientists to tell us.

 

[IanC]

The controversy between Willson and Lean is over a decade old. And all the present graphs that I trust, those of NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, show a decline, very small, but a decline none the less, for the last 50 years. Thus far, no one has been able to show me why a decline in the TSI should result in further warming.

In fact, 2008 should have been a very cold year. One that was in the bottom 10 for warmth, not in the top ten. A very strong solar minimum with virtually no sunspots, a strong La Nina. But, depending on the record keepers, it ranked as either the tenth or eight warmest on record. And the next year, 2009, tied for second warmest. This is not indictutive of the TSI being the cause of the present warming. The primary change that we have seen is the additional GHGs that we have added to the atmosphere. And the physics of the additional GHGs state that we should be seeing that warming.

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

This guy says the sun is getting brighter, using the same methods as your guys. Your graphs of sunspots also show a gradual increase. The latest minimum is unusual and we don't know the reasons for it. We have had some realtime data since the telescope. Better data since spacecraft and satellites. Inferred data from ice cores and other similar methods. But we don't know all the ins and outs of our sun's mechanics, like why the sunspot cycle is variable. What other cycles are there and what is their timeframes? You keep acting as if we know it all but we are only taking first steps and nothing is close to being 'settled science'.

 

[uscitizen]

What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?


Well the one that would resolve all of our problems is one that approaches absolute zero.

 

[IanC]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

I'm curious. The production of CO2 is closely linked to population. Why are the global warmers not calling for a drastic reduction in population, both in people and methane producing livestock? Hey, I'm all for more efficient use of fossil fuels but why aren't we getting to the root cause: people?

Why? Because it isn't politically feasible to control population, and it would end up being called racist anyways. For some reason everyone is always happy to gouge out some more cash from rich white nations but that is never seen as racist.

Human nature is what it is. We are going to burn fossil fuels til they're gone. I don't see how hobbling the economies of the very societies that are most likely to produce the next stages of energy production is beneficial. So until we find other ways of combatting global warming besides gouge the rich and ignore everyone else, I'm pretty much for the status quo.

Mind you I'm a liberal so I can't really speak for the right.

 

[westwall]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

It's all about money honey. Phil Jones alone has pocketed (well it has gone to his group and he gets to distribute as he see's fit) 22.6 million dollars from the US taxpayer. The GW alarmists have so far recieved over 100 billion dollars for "research", that's four times more money than was used to invent nuclear power, with nowhere near the technical capacity we have today.

Please show me one concrete thing that that 100 billion dollars has gotten us.

The continued support for GW "research" and eventual passage of laws based on the pseudo science involved is best summed up by Emma Brindal of the UN NGO "Friends of the Earth" who said

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."


That's what its all about. That is the ONE common denominator among all the GW alarmists, the seperation of your money from you and giving it to them and their cronies.

Please show me how carbon trading actually reduces pollution. So far in all I have been able to read on the subject (which is considerable) all the carbon trading scheme does is allow one corporation to buy pollution credits from another corporation that doesn't pollute so that it can continue to pollute at it's current level. And the carbon trading companies get to pocket a percentage of that transaction for doing basically nothing. And you get to pay more for those products.

So please, once again, inform us how paying more for a product reduces pollution when there is no mechanism presented to reduce pollution. They merely have to pay more for the priviledge.

One other thing, companies that close down their polluting operations in the first world (with the commensurate loss of jobs) and move them to third world nations that have no pollution controls get a huge chunk of money from the UN Clean Development Mechanism to build their new plant. All the while the big industrialists make billions and the workers (who the libs claim to fight for) get screwed yet again.

And the pollution continues.