Archive for the ‘CO2’ Category

Willi Dansgaard passes — L.A. Times botches obit


The L.A. Times notes the passing of pioneer ice core scientist Willi Dansgaard but neglects to mention that the “clear link between carbon dioxide and methane concentrations and global temperatures” found in his ice cores shows that CO2 and CH4 increase follows temperature increase, not vice versa:

Willi Dansgaard, a Danish paleoclimatologist who was the first to recognize that the Earth’s climatic history was stored in the Greenland ice cap, died Jan. 8 in Copenhagen, according to the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. He was 88.

His research, together with that of Claude Lorius of France and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, revolutionized scientific knowledge of how the temperature and composition of the atmosphere have changed over the last 150,000 years, demonstrating a clear link between carbon dioxide and methane concentrations and global temperatures.  “Willi Dansgaard dies at 88; scientist who recognized climate record in ice cap


CO2 rise "most likely due to warming oceans degassing"


“What happens if we use the plant stomata-derived CO2 instead of the ice core data?

We find that the ~250-year lag time is consistent. CO2 levels peaked 250 years after the Medieval Warm Period peaked and the Little Ice Age cooling began and CO2 bottomed out 240 years after the trough of the Little Ice Age. In a fashion similar to the glacial/interglacial lags in the ice cores, the plant stomata data indicate that CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes by about 250 years over the last millennium. The rise in CO2 that began in 1860 is most likely the result of warming oceans degassing.”  “CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata

Stop eating


“Every person emits the equivalent of approximately two tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from the time food is produced to when the human body excretes it, representing more than 20% of total yearly emissions. That is what a study by the Universidad de Almería says, confirming for the first time that human excrements contribute to water pollution, primarily with nitrogen and phosphorus.”  “Every Person Emits Two Tons of Carbon Dioxide a Year Through Eating, Spanish Study Finds

The Venus CO2 "runaway warming" fallacy


There is a good post by Steve Goddard over at WUWT on the Venus CO2 “runaway” warming fallacy.  Check it out.  Conclusion:

“So why is Venus hot?  Because it has an extremely high atmospheric pressure.  The atmospheric pressure on Venus is 92X greater than earth.  Temperatures in Earth’s atmosphere warm over 80C going from 20 kPa (altitude 15km) to 100 kPa (sea level.)  That is why mountains are much colder than the deserts which lie at their base.

The atmospheric pressure on Venus is greater than 9,000 kPa.  At those pressures, we would expect Venus to be very hot. Much, much hotter than Death Valley.

Wikipedia typifies the illogical “runaway greenhouse” argument with this statement.

Without the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth.

No it wouldn’t. 9000 kPa atmospheric pressure would occur on earth at an altitude many miles below sea level.  No such place exists, but if it did – it would be extremely hot, like Venus. A back of the envelope estimate – temperatures on earth increase by about 80C going from 20 to 100 kPa, so at 9,000 kPa we would expect temperatures to be in the ballpark  of :

20C + ln(9000/(100-20)) *80C = 400C

This is very close to what we see on Venus.  The high temperatures there can be almost completely explained by atmospheric pressure – not composition. If 90% of the CO2 in Venus atmosphere was replaced by Nitrogen, it would change temperatures there by only a few tens of degrees.

How did such bad science become “common knowledge?” The greenhouse effect can not be the cause of the high temperatures on Venus. “Group Think” at it’s worst, and I am embarrassed to admit that I blindly accepted it for decades.

Blame CO2 first – ask questions later.”  “Hyperventilating on Venus

China: CO2 not a pollutant


“China said greenhouse gases from the shipping industry shouldn’t be covered by marine pollution rules because carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant.

Emissions from ships may be better regulated by the International Maritime Organization’s council or a new international convention, said Xiaofeng Guo, a member of China’s delegation attending IMO talks in London this week.

IMO marine pollution rules are “definitely not the way because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” he said.”  “China: Marine pollution rules shouldn’t govern ship carbon

Physicist: mankind needs to start preparing for the ice age


“A leading scientist has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age.  …

[R]enowned physicist Vladimir Paar says most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice.  …

Professor Paar, from Croatia’s Zagreb University, has spent decades analysing previous ice ages in Europe and what caused them.  …

“Previous ice ages lasted about 70,000 years. That’s a fact and the new ice age can’t be avoided.  …

“This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can’t predict it precisely, but it will come,” he added.

And the professor said that scientists think global warming is simply a natural part of the planet.

“What I mean is that global warming is natural. Some 130,000 years ago the earth’s temperature was the same as now, the level of CO2 was almost the same and the level of the sea was four metres higher.  …  ,” he said.

And he added: “The reality is that mankind needs to start preparing for the ice age. We are at the end of the global warming period. The ice age is to follow.  … [W]e do not know precisely when it could start – but soon.””  “Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years”  h/t Prison Planet

Will "ocean acidification" destroy calcareous creatures, as claimed by alarmists?


“The authors write that “coccolithophores are unicellular pelagic algae that represent a large part of the world ocean’s nannophytoplankton and play a significant role in the carbon cycle as major producers of biogenic calcium carbonate,” stating that “the inorganic fossil remains of coccolithophores consist of <20µm calcareous plates called coccoliths,” the small size and large abundance of which “make it possible to sample marine sediment cores at mm to sub-mm intervals with ultra-high resolution.”  …

The three researchers report that “morphometric parameters measured on E. Huxleyi, G. muellerae and G. oceanica indicate increasing coccolithophore shell carbonate mass from ~1917 until 2004 concomitant with rising pCO2 and sea surface temperature in the region of the SBB.” More specifically, they say that “a >33% increase in mean coccolith weight was determined for the order Isochrysidales over 87 years from ~1917 until 2004.”

Grelaud et al. write that “the last century has witnessed an increasing net influx of atmospheric carbon dioxide into the world’s oceans, a rising of pCO2 of surface waters, and under-saturation with respect to aragonite, especially along the North American Pacific margin,” which was the site of their study. These conditions, as they describe it, have been predicted by climate alarmists “to result in reduced coccolithophore carbonate mass and a concomitant decrease in size and weight of coccoliths [italics added].” As indicated by Grelaud et al.’s study, however, just the opposite appears to be the case in the real world, even in places where the predicted calcification reductions are expected to be greatest, as has also been demonstrated to be the case by the work of Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. (2008), who observed — in the words of Grelaud et al. — “a 40% increase in average coccolith weight across the last 220 years, as recorded in a box core from the subpoloar North Atlantic,” and as has been further confirmed by the complimentary work of Halloran et al. (2008).”  “Calcifying Coccolithophores off the California Coast

Miskolczi's theory is testable


As Miklos Zigoni notes (previous post), “During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.” This is empirical evidence that Miskolczi’s theory is correct.

He further notes, “Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value.”

This prediction offers a simple further test of Miskolczi’s theory: if absolute humidity continues to decrease as atmospheric CO2 increases, keeping the greenhouse effect constant, that would be strong evidence for the correctness of the theory.

Miklos Zagoni: short summary of Miskolczi's saturated greenhouse theory


“Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is –

constant, not increasing;
equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.

During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.

Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.

Surface warming is possible only if the available energy increases. This may happen through changes in the activity of the Sun, or through variations of our planet’s orbital parameters, or through long-term fluctuations in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere.

There are also some man-made sources. Air-pollution by aerosols (soot, black carbon, dust, smog etc.), and large-scale surface modifications according to urbanization and land-use change may—and probably do—alter the amount of absorbed and reflected shortwave energy, and can hence lead to change in the long-term energy balance.

These terms are all involved in the “available energy”. They can all modify the “effective temperature” of the Earth – i.e. the temperature of a planet with the Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) at the Earth’s current distance from the Sun, without the presence of greenhouse gases in the air. The effective temperature is now 255 Kelvin, or –18 °C.

Miskolczi asserts that the surplus temperature from the greenhouse gases (about 33 C°, bringing global mean surface temperature up from –18 °C to 15 °C) is constant, maximized, and cannot be increased by our CO2 emissions, because it is the greenhouse effect’s theoretical equilibrium value.

It is possible that in the 21st century the effective temperature may change a little, just as it has changed in previous centuries. But the additional (greenhouse) temperature will be 33 C°, within a variation of about 0.1 C° of recent decades. Physically, it cannot increase (as the UN IPCC has predicted it will increase) to 35-38 C° to produce a 2-5 C° warming.

The conclusion is that, since the Earth’s temperature does not depend on our CO2 emissions in any way, trying to limit our emissions is bound to be entirely ineffective in protecting the climate from warming.” “CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”

Quote of the day


“Carbon-dense energy sources are all upside – they are cheap, plentiful and the primary effluent, CO2, supports the biosphere and underpins the global food supply. Sadly it will not make the world measurably warmer (although that would be a plus, too) but use of carbon-dense fuels is good for people, plants and wildlife. Only misanthropists and the misinformed find it problematic.” Junk Science 21 December.