What Do We Think About Climate Change

"even when led through the material at a slower pace and step by step shown how the data fits together seem to somehow cling with a death grip to there preconceived ideas rather than make any attempt to learn anything new" - get away from the mirror and try to say that again without laughing!

 

page 708 same document clearly shows that while ~15 years after the bomb related c14 introduction atmospheric levels of this c14 were still ~300 points above established background levels and ~30 years after introduction the levels had only reduced by 1/3 to ~200 points above established background

clearly these tests indicate that the measured residence time of c14 is significantly longer than the 4 years or so claimed by deniers

Mark
read the material and decide for yourself but do not rely on the deniers to interpret it for you
just read it as written and you will see that it is the deniers who are misrepresenting the data pool when they make wild claims like a measured co2 residency time of only a few years

I tried to point this out politely earlier but a few of these folks just would not have it
so now I guess Ill have to rub there noses in the actual relevant studies

kinda hard to deny now isnt it

although Im sure there will be a few who exhibit that fossilization syndrome I had mentioned earlier

 

Two points, Alan.

First point:

I take it from your statements that you are prepared to accept as 'settled science' that the half-life of atmospheric CO2 is short, on the order of ~5 years, rather than long, as the IPCC asserts. This is wise as there is no support for the claim that it is long, and plenty of support for the claim that it is short.

Second point:

If you go back a few pages, a two container and even a three container model was discussed at some length. Basically, a multi-container model can account for a short initial residence time that nevertheless lengthens on timescales longer than the half-life. While these are very useful for understanding the totality of fluxes acting on atmospheric CO2, we can obviate the need of these when measuring the actual residence time by the simple expedient of re-measuring the residence time over a period of years. If we were not properly characterizing the residence time on timescales longer than the 'simple' half-life, then measurements taken over a period of decades should account for this by showing that the residence time is in fact lengthening. Such a body of data does indeed exist, going back to the residence time studies done in the mid 1950's and continuing right up until 2009, when the last residence time study results were published.

Bottom line:

The atmospheric CO2 residence time is NOT any longer today than it was in 1957, despite the fact that ~60% of all anthropogenic CO2 was released since 1978.

Jimbo

 

It's amazing that you can rant on like this, without ever once addressing the salient point: The warmer's SENIOR SCIENTISTS, THE BEST GUYS THEY HAVE, have been caught in lies and exaggerations, not once or twice, but NUMEROUS times. We're not talking about some schmuck like Al Bore or Monktey boy, but the AGW camp's TOP MEN!

And Troy is OK with that. I think the problem of circular logic escapes him, so I'll explain it with a little skit

A mock argument:

Warmer: The Earth is overheating and we've caused it! we're destroying the planet; we've got to change to save the planet!

Skeptic: But how do you know that the planet needs saving?

Warmer: Because my data says so; just look!

Skeptic: But you've doctored this data; it doesn't show a problem at all! How do you justify doctoring the data that way?

Warmer: I'll do anything to save the planet!

Skeptic: But how do you know the planet needs saving?

Warmer: Because my data says so; just look!

Jimbo

 

Let's not forget that we've documented the IPCC's use of the 4 years number also.

Jimbo

 

this PDF should help clear up your confusion Jim

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=6&ved=0CCoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biology.ufl.edu%2Fecosystemdynamics%2Fradiocarbon09%2FDownloads%2FReprints%2C%2520Lecture%2FLevin%26Hessheimer%25202000.pdf&rct=j&q=bomb+14co2+atmospheric+residence+time+studies&ei=czvTS6itJoOQsAOCm9H_Ag&usg=AFQjCNFkwWSD8yiiCHbS-KraY65agPXq1g&sig2=Oh_wZwUFCbSYJmP09Wic4g

this clearly states that while a 50% reduction does represent a mean residency time and that this reduction does seem to occur in a relatively short period of time that this reduction is not linear in nature and therefor a significant amount of co2 will remain in the atmosphere for a very long time

as shown in the following by Rhodes 2009



as can be clearly seen although there is an initial equilibrium sought by atmospheric co2 and thus a rapid initial decline a large fraction remains within the atmospheric chemistry and remains for a very long time

clinging to confusion simply to escape admitting you have made an error is hardly an appropriate method of conversation

 

First of all, you're blowing smoke when you say the senior scientists involved in climate change have been caught in numerous big lies that materially affect the results of their research. They haven't. You're inflating trivia and minor disagreements all out of proportion when you make such a claim.

You need to take a closer look at your heroes instead, like Monckton. You're exaggerating the sins of legitimate scientists beyond all reason, and completely overlooking those of people you want to believe.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Nice debate with your little strawman there. You stuffed him, stood him up in front of the classroom, and beat the crap out of him until there was straw flying every which way. By golly, that'll teach those Warmers not to mess with you...

 

I believe thats called hitting the proverbial nail directly on the head Troy

well said

B

 

Wonder B,

We already KNOW all of this; it's all part of the definition (given in the basic equation) of half-life. As we have acknowledged NUMEROUS times, the 'tail' will take a long time to dissipate; it NEVER disappears completely because it's an 'asymptotic' function. There is nothing controversial or new being offered here. But using the equations as they are, and using the provable half-life of CO2, YOU CANNOT get CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere from incidental sources like anthropogenic emissions!

That's why the IPCC dreamed up a half-life (not the tail or the e-folding or whatever other expression of the same phenomena you wish to convert to) to be "50-200 years" because a 5 year half-life just doesn't jibe with their assertions. If it did, we'd be at 800 ppm RIGHT NOW.

Jimbo

 

actually your use of the term half life is also mistaken as this term is referring to the activity of radionuclides and not the residence time of co2

your very slowly sneaking up on admitting something here Jim better be careful. Simple reality is that the residency time for a very large fraction (25%+) of co2 is quite long as measured in the tens of thousands of years while the residency time of half (~50%) the quantity of anthropogenic co2 is relatively short. As several people have been trying to explain to you for quite some time now. Seems you are still stuck on a linear digression though, (obviously did not read the material presented) so let me repeat again and maybe you will get it this time. CO2 does not dissipate in a direct linear relationship with time. Repeat that a few times if you need to. CO2 does not dissipate in a direct linear relationship with time. There see its not so hard, lets try it again. CO2 does not dissipate in a direct linear relationship with time. Maybe you could make some flash cards and carry them around with you, might help CO2 does not dissipate in a direct linear relationship with time.

this is one small piece in the larger equation ( or model as the case may be ) and as it has been pointed numerous times this large fraction of co2 which can be directly traced to the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere for quite some time thus creating the dramatic rise in co2 as measured (oops is that another co2 direct measurement study I just mentioned ).

why do I picture you standing on the edge of the chasm of realization afraid to take the leap

co2 has been building rapidly and steadily in lock step with our use of fossil fuels and unfortunately a large fraction of this co2 will be with us for quite some time
which is why it is so imperative that we do three things asap

1) hold the oil and gas industry world wide responsible for cleaning up there pollution

2) hold the crooked politicians ( that would be all of them ) they have bribed to be allowed to commit these crimes, financially responsible for selling out the people they were elected to protect

3) Immediately reduce the tax burden on at least the people of this country and preferably world wide thus enabling millions to be spent by the private sector on alternative energies research and the immediate development of electrics and other green energies

continuing to support the draconian practices of big oil and dirty coal is in no ones better interest except those on the take like the politicians and the pr firms. Continuing to support massive governments who's only real job it is to take out the trash and pay the street lights bill is ludicrous. We would be far better off without large government constantly screwing up literally everything they touch, particularly energy policies

ps
does anyone else think this thread is being subsidized by a oil and gas PR firm somewhere
I just cant picture old Jeff putting up with all the petty bickering and personal attacks that happen around here

Troy I tried to give you a few points when you got zapped by some coward but this thing wont let me

cheers
B

 

No, No NO, Troy, this is WRONG! The lies they have been caught in are very big and important! And before the lies were even discovered, they carried on a 'stonewall' campaign for YEARS to deny the release of the raw data that they claimed underpinned their assertions. You can't take on the validating cloak of 'peer reviewed' without also accepting the responsibilities thereof, specifically the agreement to disclose raw data to those who would ask for it.

Before the big lies were corroborated in the hacked emails, they got caught fabricating important data to support the idea that the dual problems of station urbanization and urban heat islands have been properly accounted for. Downright fabricated. The IPCC continues to refer to this study in rebuttal whenever the question of Urbanization/UHI comes up.

And the really big lie involves that original turd in the punchbowl, MBH-98. (Bear with me because the explanation is long.)

As you may or may not know, MBH-98 mostly used the annual growth rings of trees (at the 'treeline') as proxies for temperature to reconstruct the paleo-climate. The really important assertion of MBH-98 was that there WAS NO Medieval Warm Period of any significance, with the corollary implication that 20th century climate was therefore anomalously hot. As with any temperature proxy, they work best when you are able to 'calibrate' them, that is, relate a certain quantity observed in the proxy (such as the width/density of the growth rings) to a particular point on an actual thermometer. Of course calibrated thermometers have only a ~150 year history, and weather data gathering considerably less than that, so we have to use relatively recent historical temperature data to calibrate the proxy, then look at the older proxy data (in this case, tree growth rings from farther back in time) and relate that to a point in time where the temperature was 'X', in accord with the calibrated proxy.

The problem is when they went to calibrate the tree ring width as a proxy for temperature, it didn't always agree with the thermometer record as it should, which created a dilemma. For instance the tree rings seem to correlate with temperature fairly well until about 50 years ago, but then the two data sets diverge, with the tree rings getting narrower despite rising temperatures, thus skewing the tree ring data lower. But if we accepted those data points to calibrate the tree rings, then we are forced to accept that it was much warmer long ago during the Medieval period, then MBH-98 becomes just another reconstruction showing a prominent MWP. What to do?

What they apparently did was to 'fiddle' with the thermometer record to bring the two data sets into agreement. This is very dishonest. This is also not really news to anyone that has followed the whole AGW controversy for a long time as this debate has been raging for more than 10 years. We skeptics have always said that the warmers are 'fudging' the data; the hacked emails just proved it beyond a doubt. They have successfully 'spun' their way out of it since most people are just not informed enough about the questions at hand. Few people are even aware of the whole 'divergence' problem.

The fact that these guys 'accidentally' deleted the pertinent data sets is more than a little suspicious, don't you agree? (Their freakin JOB is data archiving, f chris'sake!) I mean these guys fought for years to avoid releasing any of it (even though the data belongs to the public!), then when a FOI order was imminent, poof! Golly, I guess we lost it! How convenient!

All 'foundational' stuff Troy. Without it, AGW is out of gas.

Jimbo

 

I knew you guys could not stick to the science! Round 22, coming up.

Jimbo

 

inacurate in the extreme Jim but I apologize if my last was a tad sarcastic

I have provided numerous citations and references from multiple sources in order to try and show you that a significant fraction of the co2 emitted by fossil fuels remains for quite some time in the environment

how that constitutes deviating from the science is a mystery to me

offering a few solutions might also be considered on topic

suggesting that a few learning tools might be in order could also help as many of these issues we're discussing now have been discussed before, and by some obviously well educated people in the sciences, somehow they just dont seem to stick.

I think we all get a bit overzealous around here from time to time but the essence of my last was spot on the science. I hope the point has been sufficiently proven that we might move on to the realization that without a reduction in co2 emissions we are headed for ever increasing atmospheric concentrations. The result of which could very likely be a significantly more rapid climate change than what the planets ecosystems are geared to tolerate.

Regime change starts at home
the status quo must go

big oil and dirty coal
corrupt politicians and a socioeconomic system that has obviously failed in its pot of gold at the end of the rainbow promise
the American dream

there are solutions but we must at least understand the problems in order to effectively present them

cheers
B

there is an opportunity here for a paradigm shift that could send the world down a better path but it requires change and change can only be had through realization
one must realize there is a problem before one might overcome it
otherwise we just continue on a unsustainable path to an inevitable end

the example of doubling time has been used before and constitutes an excellent tool for getting the point across
11 hours and 56 minutes on a 12 hours clock you still have 93.75% of your resources left and no one is even remotely thinking that in just a few minutes its all over
11 hours and 57 minutes on a 12 hours clock you still have 87.5% of your resources left and the party is on
11 hours and 58 minutes on a 12 hours clock you still have 75% of your resources left and someone might suggest another trip to the liquor store
11 hours and 59 minutes on a 12 hours clock you still have 50% of your resources left but unfortunately
very little time

 

Hmmm...another snarky remark about my manhood. I wonder if there's any connection to the identity of the last gutless wonder who gave me anonymous negative points?

Of course I believe what I'm saying about unions, Mark. Would you prefer I fight to defend something I don't believe in? But it isn't blind dogma, or a knee-jerk case of automatically siding with workers over bosses. I've been on both sides of the fence, and actually spent more time as a general contractor and tract superintendent than I have as a union member.

What's with this "we" stuff, when you talk about men who spent their early years acting feminine in a vain attempt to get laid? I really don't think you should be judging the rest of us by your own experiences.

In my younger years, both in the military and in college, the circles I ran in thought the best way to get laid was to act like a man, not like an imitation woman. I'm betting it worked better than your way....

 

I apologize for the delay in providing more information on this topic. I was quite busy with various tasks today. In addition, it's been a while since I did much work solving rate equations, and it took me a while to work through the result to the correct final form. (For those of you who care, this system results in two coupled first order inhomogeneous differential equations that needed to be solved.)

First a clarification. In the post quoted above I stated that the equilibrium constant is given by B/A. What I should have said was that the equilibrium constant is given by Beq/Aeq, where Beq and Aeq are the concentrations of B and A after the system reaches equilibrium. For the thermodynamic purists out there (come on, admit it, you are one aren't you?) one should use thermodynamic activities rather than concentrations, but let's not get that picky about those things.

Also, I should have said that for the purposes of this discussion we are assuming that the compartments corresponding to A and B are of equal volume. This is not a necessary assumption. One can do the analysis for unequal volumes, but then one needs to introduce a bunch of extra symbols to keep track of some variables, which is not really important to the basic understanding of most aspects of how these systems behave.

Any way, I don't think there is a good way to put mathematical equations into these posts, so I am going to break the results down into simpler pieces that are easier to express in simple text. The concentration of A is given by the following:

A=(A0-E)*exp(-(ka+kb)t)+E

where A0 is the concentration of A at time t=0 and E is given by the expression:

E=C*kb/(Ka+kb)

where C is a constant defined by

C=A0+B0

where B0 is defined as the concentration of B at time t=0.

As a parenthetical note, it turns out that in this system C is the sum of A and B at any time, not just at time t=0.

The concentration of B is given by a very similar expression, except that everywhere you had A0 in the expression above you substitute a B0, everywhere you had a kb in the expression above you substitute a ka, and everywhere you had a ka in the expression above you substitute a kb.

In the system above, the concentration of A follows a rather simple form. It changes in a negative exponential fashion with time, starting at A0 and asymptotically approaching its final equilibrium concentration of Aeq. Likewise, the the concentration of B starts at B0 and then changes in a negative exponential fashion, asymptotically approaching its final concentration of Beq.

Some of the details of how this happens are rather interesting. If kb is zero, then the equilibrium concentration of A is zero, and the concentration of A assymtotically approaches zero as the time goes toward infinity. There are no physical processes for which this is strictly true, but there are many systems for which this is a very good approximation. For this kind of system the half life is a very useful parameter because it is invariant at any point in in process. In other words, if I start at time t=0 and wait until the concentration of A is half gone I get a certain half life. On the other hand, if I start looking at the process later in time, and I record the concentration, and then measure the amount of time for it to go to half of that concentration, then lo and behold I get the same half life.

By the symmetry of the equations there is an analogous case for B, but we will not go into that case because there is nothing new to consider.

The situation where kb is zero is the only case where A has a well behaved half life. In all other cases (i.e., if kb has any value other than zero) the "half life" (as you probably understand the term) is not well behaved. To be specific there is no half life that can be used to describe the time it takes for the concentration to drop to half its value that applies to every time point in the process. In fact, under certain conditions (notably, when the equilibrium constant has a value of 1 or less) the concentration of A never falls to half its original value, i.e. there is no such thing a a "half life" in the sense that one usually uses the word.

In cases where the equilibrium constant is greater than 1 but less than infinity, the concentration of A will eventually fall to half its original value. However, the next half life cycle takes more time than the first half life cycle, and eventually the time it takes to drop the concentration by half reaches to infinity or beyond. In other words, a time comes when it is impossible for the concentration to be cut in half again. Clearly, the "half life" in this kind of a system is not a very useful parameter.

The system described above would correspond to a simple sort of earth, composed entirely of a well mixed atmosphere (compartment A) and a well mixed ocean (compartment B). For such a system the equilibrium constant is finite, so that puts us in a regime where the half life is, strictly speaking, not very useful. More complex systems (such as the real earth) can show more complex behavior, which actually raises the possibility that the meaning of half life becomes even more problematical.

Taking a cue from Boston, if I get some time maybe I will give some graphical examples to illustrate the discussion above.

By the way, there is a different kind of half life that one can define for the system above. It is the time it takes for the process to reach half way toward equilibrium. Under this definition of half life it is a well behave parameter. However, this definition is probably not what Jimbo and others had in mind when discussing half life.

Though I do not claim to be an expert in climatology, I do know quite a bit about basic kinetic processes. In fact, the analysis presented above is similar to the kind of equations I had to solve in my PhD work, so in that sense I could be considered an expert on this topic. (Actually, the equations in my PhD work were somewhat more complex.) However, don't take my word for it. Go find yourself a professor of physical chemistry or chemical engineering at your local college, and ask him if I gave the correct solution to the well-mixed two compartment problem.