Ocean News

Because the chart I presented shows that CO2 EQUILIBRIUM HAS NOT YET BEEN REACHED!!!!!!

And therefore neither has temperature equilibrium!! Temperature equilibrium will lag CO2 equilibrium by many decades, maybe even by centuries.

Previous articles that I've posted are suggesting that a doubling of CO2 (from 280 ppm) could increase temps not just by 3C, but maybe by as much as 5C. This is really bad news!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

You redefine terms to suit yourself.
Dr Ed explained, if you read his paper carefully, CO2 EQUILIBRIUM is not a static quantity. Total ppm may and probably will increase. As the ocean warms, it expires more CO2. That's climate driving CO2, not the obverse. It is outflow equals inflow maintains an equilibrium and proportions, percents, remain equal. Sinks don't avoid or reject human CO2, and allow a backlog to accumulate!

But isn't that precisely the unscientific claim of the IPCC and alarmists, that human CO2 accumulates? Physics disagrees with that position, and Dr Ed does the math of physics to demonstrate the error.

 

Is there any doubt, the IPCC was deliberately created to further a preformed conclusion and agenda? They admitted it in 1988.

" Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation."

Objectivity? Nil They already ASSUMED humans caused warming, in 1988, and no contrary opinion or evidence welcomed. Not then, not now.

Has the IPCC ever gotten anything right? I agree with this except.
In the words of the IPCC (Third Assessment Report, TAR, ):

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible"

.Everyone swears the IPCC have proof, but still nothing from the AR5 | CCG https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/06/everyone-swears-the-ipcc-have-proof-but-still-nothing-from-the-ar5/


Science refutes alarmist arguments.
Who to Blame for Rising CO2? https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/who-to-blame-for-rising-co2/

 

back to Ocean News

In the most recent GWPF 2017 State of the Climate report, Dr. Humlum made this observation:

“It is instructive to consider the variation of the annual change rate of atmospheric CO2 together with the annual change rates for the global air temperature and global sea surface temperature (Figure 16). All three change rates clearly vary in concert, but with sea surface temperature rates leading the global temperature rates by a few months and atmospheric CO2 rates lagging 11–12 months behind the sea surface temperature rates.”

Oceans Make Climate – Science Matters https://rclutz.wordpress.com/category/oceans-make-climate/

 

Double pendulum - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

As soon as you think you understand something, a second variable is discovered and complicates it dramatically.

In the words of the IPCC (Third Assessment Report, TAR, ):

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible"


Oriental fighting iron

 

You are correct that CO2 sinks don't avoid or reject "human CO2."

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 emissions from land and sea roughly stayed the same as CO2 absorption by land and sea. As shown in the chart in post 3353, CO2 levels varied between ~175 ppm and ~300 ppm for the past million years. But over the last few hundred years CO2 levels have skyrocketed due to humans burning fossil fuels. Because the rate of release by humans has been so fast, geologically speaking, the natural carbon sinks have not been able to keep up. Approximately 25% of the equivalent of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the land; another 25% by the oceans.
The remaining 50% is a net addition to the atmosphere. It is this 50% (of the 5% that humans currently are producing compared to the 95% that nature produces), or currently about 2% of total CO2 emissions (1/2 of 5%) that is being added yearly to the atmosphere. And each year, on average, the human percent of CO2 emissions keeps increasing.

Even though the oceans will be less able to absorb CO2 as they warm, they are still far enough away from saturation so as to continue to be net sinks. That is why we have the phenomena known as "Ocean Acidification," with all its attendant ills.

A brief explanation of NOAA's take on the CO2 relation between the ocean and the atmosphere can be found here:

Ocean-Atmosphere CO2 Exchange

A more complex description from NASA, in story form, can be found here:

The Ocean's Carbon Balance

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As for Dr. Berry.... It is really astounding, even preposterous, that 100's of 1000's of scientists can't figure out how the Carbon Cycle truly works, but dear Dr Ed, slaving away all by himself at his ancient computer, has figured it out for all mankind. And lo and behold, his answer is different than anyone else's. What a genius he must be! And it was so very clever of you, Yob, to find his pearls hidden among all the trash of laim-stream science. That makes you a genius too. Y ou must feel very proud of yourself.

 

I suspect you did not read Dr Ed Berry's paper. If you did, it was with a closed mind, imagining what he was saying rather than attention to what he said.

You weren't the only one, evidenced by some comments posted at bottom.of page.

Dr Ed says very clearly, THIS paper does not discuss how carbon causes warming, or not, carbon cycles, where the carbon comes from or goes to.

He says point blank, the IPCC model and Nasa models, apparently derived from the IPCC model are wrong. Or certainly Nasa used the same unscientific premise. They are error ridden because they are based upon a false unscientific premise.
This: " Natural CO2 is good and human CO2 is bad!"

The scientific irrefutable fact is, CO2 is CO2.
Fruit of a poison tree is poisonous. Eliminating those bad unscientific models is a preliminary necessity to make room for and acceptance of HIS model. His model will be further fleshed out in future papers. For now, this paper, addresses only one issue. A controversial issue. He kept the model simple as a start, to avoid critics going off on tangents.

Human CO2 contribution is five percent (bit less) and regardless of what you do with the inflow, outflow, cycles, or any other distraction, the resulting combined solution of CO2 is five percent human. The result is a five percent human to ninety five percent natural contribution mix, solution, concentration in the atmosphere.. Irregardless of total ppm or how important the gas is.

There is no way a 95% to 5% ratio imput, inflow, becomes a 70% to 30% final mix! The final mix ratio is always determined by the inflow ratio. Physics and laws of physics say so.

The IPCC, warmists and Nasa say the CO2 in the atmosphere is thirty percent human contributed. Scientifically impossible. Wrong, error, unscientific, poisoned conclusion that violates laws of physics.
That is what their models were designed to produce. An erroneous conclusion! Based on a false premise, that nature is good and human is bad. Somebody needs a spanking! Bad Model! Bad Model!

Dr Ed Berry is a climate physicist. He knows physics!

The scientific debate over AGW continues unabated despite your wilful blindness to it.

 

The IPCC''s Bern climate model is self damning.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Co2 is CO2, regardless where it's source, it's the same identical stuff.
If, a big IF, there is an eternal residual component of human contributed CO2 in the atmosphere? There must also be an equivalent eternal component of naturally contributed CO2, twenty times larger!

Proof the IPCC Bern model, and Nasa's derivative model, are erroneously bias weighted to predict human's five percent CO2 contribution as a nefarious perturbation is simple to prove, turn about is fair play.

Load the Bern model with natures 95% contribution!
Predicts recent 1000 years of NATURAL annual contribution of 100 ppm adds a permanent residual 15 ppm per year, ie, a total irreversible increase of 15,000 ppm of permanent residual CO2 in today's atmosphere.

Is 15,000 ppm atmospheric CO2 credible? Or ridiculous? Blame IPCC's and Nasa's climate models!

Obviously IPCC and NASA have warped, biased models, because 15000 ppm of CO2 doesn't exist in the atmosphere, but it MUST if CO2 is equivalent to CO2, is long term residual, and the models are valid!

Co2 doesn't change it's attributes dependent on source, and the CO2 atmospheric concentration of 410ppm hasn't changed suddenly into 15,000 ppm. So what's the obvious conclusion? Is it hiding somewhere?

Logical conclusion: If natural CO2 isn't accumulating, well then, neither is human contributed CO2 accumulating!

Ergo, No, none of CO2 is permanently residual, it has no longterm redidual accumulation, and the models are very seriously flawed..
Even intentionally fraudulent could be argued!

The idea and figures are Dr Ed Berry's from his paper previously cited. I used my own comments to display his numbers, paraphrasing some of his copyrighted language.

Your paranoia of refutation is understandably valid. Your sides deluded position is highly vulnerable when logic, mathematics, and actual science are applied!

I'm curious how you will counter this post, because I can't imagine how it can be effectively countered!
Your sides climate models damn themselves and their creators!

My hope is this is convincing how flawed the AGW theory is, and how unscientific it's mentors operate, discounting their elevated degrees and "climate expertise"! Is there no internal conflict when agenda supplants scientific method? Oops! That's a question of ethics, not science!
You'll probably just ignore the mathematics, is my best guess.

 

CO2 from different sources is chemically the same, but can be isotopically different -- the difference being the ratios of C12, C13, and C14 in the CO2 molecules. That's why we know that it's the burning of fossil fuels that's making the bathtub fill faster than it is draining.

For a person of such reported good judgement, you certainly don't have very good judgement. Both sources of CO2 are accumulating. But it's not the natural sources that are overwhelming the sinks. It's the added CO2 from burning fossil fuels that's the critical contributor. Though as Earth warms positive feedback loops are starting to develop that are causing some natural sources of CO2 to increase, further overwhelming the CO2 sinks.

ETA: Because the atmospheric CO2 sources are not yet at equilibrium with CO2 sinks, the ratio between (CO2 from fossil fuels)/(CO2 from natural sources) is still increasing. That is, the concentration of CO2 from fossil fuels is increasing in the atmosphere.

 

Load the Bern model with natures 95% contribution!
Predicts recent 1000 years of NATURAL annual contribution of 100 ppm adds a permanent residual 15 ppm per year, ie, a total irreversible increase of 15,000 ppm of permanent residual CO2 in today's atmosphere.


There is no long term retention of CO2 in the atmosphere. Four years. That's it.

Ignoring the math is about as effective as turning a blind eye to scientific refutations and debate over AGW

 

Greenhouse Gases: How Long Will They Last?

Many people don’t realize that the greenhouse gases we emit can stay in the atmosphere for decades, centuries or even millennia. That’s why it’s so important that we cap emissions as soon as possible.

Here’s a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:


Greenhouse Gas Lifetime | (Years) | 100-Year GWP
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) | hundreds | 1
Methane (CH4) | 12 | 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) | 114 | 298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) | 264 | 14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) | 3,200 | 22,800
PFC-14 (CF4) | 50,000 | 7,390
Source: Table 2.14 in the IPCC AR4 WG-I Report. Original table lists many more gases.

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is “hundreds of years”, rather than a specific number.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report defines a gas’s lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process.

Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades. The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I (AR4, WG-I) Executive Summary of Chapter 7:

About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.​

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports:

Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.​

From RealClimate post "How long will global warming last?":

My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That’s a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.​

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

• Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
• Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

 

LOL.
If human contributed CO2 is retained for hundreds of years, so is natural contributed CO2. Nature can't distinguish between the two for preferential treatment!
Natural contributed CO2 is roughly twenty times the amount of human contributed CO2.
If it's retained, it's retaining twenty times as much as human CO2.
Where is this massive amount of retained CO2 contributed naturally?

The IPCC is full of it, and you don't make a convincing point by quoting them.

Quoting talking points isn't an argument.
Logic is if human CO2 is retained, a massive twenty times larger amount of natural CO2 is retained, and the ppm go through the roof!

We only have 410 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. How much is being retained each year for hundreds of future years?

Apparently, by your argument, ALL the 410 ppm currently detected is old retained for hundreds of years CO2.

We know that's incorrect, their are current emissions, so where is the ancient hundreds of years old retained, CO2 of which humans contributed only 1/20th a part?

 

Yes, of course. The rest of your argument is garbage.

As posted before, here is the total accumulation of all sources of atmospheric CO2. Notice that the rate of increase is increasing. NOT GOOD!!!!!!!

 

it's not a rant and it's not garbage. It's simple.
You, the IPCC, and NASA want to ignore the ninety five percent of CO2 contributed by nature.

That is unscientific illogical and ridiculous.

You are required to treat natural CO2 exactly as you treat human CO2.
Your models don't, and that's their problem, and the problem with your arguments of hundreds of years retention.

 

Absolutely not! It's all included in the climate models.

It's the human part that is making the bathtub fill faster than it is emptying, and it is primarily the human part that we can most easily control.