Enjoy Earth While It Lasts: Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass the Point of No Return

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Here's what I noticed: they got essentially the same carbon dioxide level fluctuations in Oklahoma and Alaska. That strikes me as strange and unexpected. There is much more flora in Oklahoma than in Alaska, and therefore is a much higher rate of photosynthetic scrubbing. Atmospheric mixing could easily account for some of that, but could it account for levels (and variations) that close? I also noticed they got the same carbon dioxide reflection at both locations. That is only expected if the carbon dioxide levels were identical. Finally, I noticed the reflection power was 0.2 W/m^2 per decade... 0.02 W/m^2 per year... so each year, based on an average solar irradiation value of 1370 W/m^2, that's an average present power increase of less than 0.0015%

Solar radiation power can easily vary by 0.4 W/m^2, or +/-0.03%. That's 20 times the effect, yet temperatures do not spin out of control due to solar variation.

I'd be interested to see if this observation is repeatable; unexpected results do not mean bad results. But even if it is repeatable, those figures do not indicate a need to panic IMO.

That's not really surprising, CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere. If you want, you can look all over at CO2 data. It tends to be within just a few ppm between most sites. BRW is the Barrow, Alaska site. Antarctica/Australia I think is closer to what you're thinking of, as they show a more steady rise in CO2. The southern hemisphere is a bit segregated from the northern hemisphere.

Also, you're misapplying the solar constant here. 1370 W/m^2 would be what a flat disk receives. Earth is, however, sorta spherical. 1370 W/m^2 is what a disk would receive(πr^2), but it's cast on a sphere (4πr^2), which means you have to quarter it: ~342.5 W/m^2. Ain't perfect, but it's a lot closer... actual measurements in any given location depend greatly on where the Sun is, of course - it can be anywhere from 0 W/m^2 up to 1050 W/m^2; reduced due to atmospheric effects. Speaking of which, this also reduces that 342.5 W/m^2 by at least that difference. On a clear day, that's -25% for ~260 W/m^2; average is really closer to -30% for 240 W/m^2. 0.02 W/m^2 on this would be 0.00833...% annually.

Similarly the small solar variation is reduced across a sphere from what it would be on a disk. 0.4 W/m^2 reduced to 0.1 W/m^2 and then 0.07 W/m^2. As for how much that is... I recall, estimates of the Little Ice Age put TSI at about 1360 W/m^2. While the solar constant is 1370 W/m^2, satellite measurements indicate it's closer to 1365 W/m^2 today, so that 5 W/m^2 difference spread across the globe is really a mere 0.875 W/m^2.

Oh, and remember that the measured W/m^2 increase from CO2 accounts for only 10% of the overall warming trend.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

The warming was "linked" by the scientists to CO2.

If there is one thing I have learned to be aware of when reading studies in the words "linked to" and "associated with". These words do not mean caused.

As we are all aware, correlation is not causation. How do the scientists know that warming caused by some other driver may be affecting levels of carbon dioxide?

Uh no, that's the warming directly attributable to carbon dioxide. It's likely responsible indirectly for much of the remaining from water vapor, other than a little from methane.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: WeAre0ne

I am speechless.

Are the public schools in this bad of a shape?

What do you take offense to, the Stanford study?
That CO2 could be not as beneficial - or even (in extreme circumstances) kill plants?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: pikestaff

Too much CO2 can choke plants...

www.natureworldnews.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

It's almost like how breathing 100% oxygen is bad for humans.

Well yeah, heck 5000ppm CO2 will make humans dizzy and uncoordinated.

But greenhouse grow plants in levels can be anywhere from 500-1000ppm, sometimes higher. As with most things, there is a cutoff point where too much of anything becomes disadvantageous.

Bottom line is, most plants on Earth would consider the current concentration of CO2 to be starvation levels.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
What are you talking about? Certainly not the article.

Sample crops, grasslands, and forests all seemed to lose some ability to absorb nutrients when exposed to rising CO2 levels in large-scale field experiments held in eight countries across four continents.

"The findings of the study are unequivocal. The nitrogen content in the crops is reduced in atmospheres with raised carbon dioxide levels in all three ecosystem types," Johan Uddling, a researcher with the University of Gothenburg,

The study found that both wheat and rice are already suffering from heightening carbon levels - a phenomenon (both man- and nature-driven) that has been frequently described as impossible to stop.

www.natureworldnews.com...
cedarcreek.umn.edu...

Bottom line is, most plants on Earth would consider the current concentration of CO2 to be starvation levels.

They seem to have been doing quite well for the past few thousand years.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Bottom line is, most plants on Earth would consider the current concentration of CO2 to be starvation levels.

So... plants have been starving for 5 million years?

a reply to: Greven

That's not really surprising, CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere.

It was to me, but as I said, I cannot refute experimental results based on my surprise. I'm sure this experiment will be repeated and I am anxious to see if the results confirm these. I do expect some mixing, just not that much.

Also, you're misapplying the solar constant here.

I probably am, but that is mostly based on my attempt to justify the equal measurements in my mind.

I understand the variability of the solar constant; the 1370 W/m^2 is only applicable normal to the sun. The farther north (or south) one goes from there, the greater the area that energy is spread across. That's another concern for me, because I would expect the earth's radiation in the carbon dioxide absorption spectrum to be much less at higher latitudes due to less energy coming in and a therefore colder temperature.

So while I cannot at this time refute your study, I do question it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

Breaking News! Water can kill! When will the government limit water?

I object to the idiocy expressed both in conducting such an experiment for political purposes and in trying to legitimize it. The very premise is ridiculous, unlike the study I responded to earlier.

No, I will not debate this. It does not deserve that much respect.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
What are you talking about? Certainly not the article.

Considering the article didn't mention specific levels, there isn't much to talk about. What we *can* talk about is what concentration of CO2 that greenhouse operators use.

They seem to have been doing quite well for the past few thousand years.

Compared to?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Bottom line is, most plants on Earth would consider the current concentration of CO2 to be starvation levels.

So... plants have been starving for 5 million years?

Land-side, basically yes. In the oceans there has been more CO2 to work with.

Please refer to what greenhouse operators use in their enclosed work areas. Also, see below.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Breaking News! Water can kill! When will the government limit water?

I object to the idiocy expressed both in conducting such an experiment for political purposes and in trying to legitimize it. The very premise is ridiculous, unlike the study I responded to earlier.

No, I will not debate this. It does not deserve that much respect.

TheRedneck

That ranks right up there with breedings cows to fart less... completely ingnoring that the bacterial fauna are the source of methane. Want them to fart less? Change their diet.

www.news.com.au...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Considering the article didn't mention specific levels, there isn't much to talk about. What we *can* talk about is what concentration of CO2 that greenhouse operators use.

Data were compiled from 35 peer-reviewed articles and two open-source websites (Table 2). Mean, standard deviation and replication (n) of plots in ambient (aCO2) and elevated (eCO2,~450–600 ppm) CO2 concentration were taken from tables, digitized from figures or directly obtained from the authors of the papers.

cedarcreek.umn.edu...

Please refer to what greenhouse operators use in their enclosed work areas.

It would be nice if the real world were enclosed. Don't you think?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Considering the article didn't mention specific levels, there isn't much to talk about. What we *can* talk about is what concentration of CO2 that greenhouse operators use.

Data were compiled from 35 peer-reviewed articles and two open-source websites (Table 2). Mean, standard deviation and replication (n) of plots in ambient (aCO2) and elevated (eCO2,~450–600 ppm) CO2 concentration were taken from tables, digitized from figures or directly obtained from the authors of the papers.

cedarcreek.umn.edu...

 

Did you pay to read that article? I followed the links and got a fuzzy article after page 1.

Sounds like those people didn't know how to grow plants.

Please refer to what greenhouse operators use in their enclosed work areas.

It would be nice if the real world were enclosed. Don't you think?

Funny, that's what climate zealots claim the Earth is, a greenhouse with trapped gases and thermal energy. Are you saying it isn't, Phage? That's quite a breakthrough.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You obviously didn't read any of the articles I posted, or at least comprehend them.

In an enclosed, temperature controlled, well fertilized, and consistently watered environment the extra CO2 increases photosynthesis and in return growth, but only if you provide extra water and nutrients. For farms and greenhouses that artificially fertilize the soil and provide water, more CO2 is great.

In the wild, however, where plants have to deal with naturally fertilized soil, natural temperatures, and naturally acquired water - plants "grow to death" when given more CO2. They grow to a larger size, and then can't sustain themselves from that point on because their environment doesn't give them enough water and nutrients.


Lets not fail to mention that higher temperatures actually reduce a plant's ability to absorb CO2.
www.scientificamerican.com...

So we have a double edged sword here.

marg6043:

The last time CO2 levels were higher than now, humans were nowhere to be found, so to say that we are causing this is nothing but a big lie...

Sorry Marg, it doesn't quite equate to the way you are thinking. Conditions on earth were far different (obviously) when CO2 levels were as high as 7000 ppm.

Allow me to assume that you already know what I am about to write. The earth goes through natural cycles of glacial and inter-glacial periods. Glacial periods can be severe or mild and both can last for hundreds of thousands of years, As you know, it has been said that earth was once completely covered in ice, very thick ice, and that is the kind of ice age that kills all land dwelling animals...the 'Snowball earth' scenario. Where was all the CO2 then? Of course, trapped in the ice and also very deep beneath it in the shallower seas and oceans.

Some thermal event or events, such as asteroid collisions or volcanism and earthquakes from tectonic movement opened up the the ice and allowed the natural process of CO2 release from the seas and oceans, which along with the continued volcanism, helped to warm up the atmosphere. Over time, the continued increase in CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere eventually melted the ice and drove it back to the poles of the earth, and left glaciers in high mountainous regions uncovered by the melting ice. Eventually, an equilibrium was reached and an interglacial period began.

Most of the land became covered in flaura and fauna, which also became CO2 sinks (exchanging CO2 for oxygen), and along with the land and seas and oceans, helped to mediate the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Both glacial and interglacial periods are symptoms of fine-tuning and balancing, but with different results. Depending on the severity of the former tends to suspend life promotion, whereas the latter does promote life in a wide spectrum of diversity.

However, the fine-tuning does not last forever, something will always cause an imbalance that causes a reaction to tip the scales towards the glacial. This can sometimes simply mean a cold snap, like a mini ice age, or if the imbalance cannot be fine-tuned towards an equilibrium, a more severe glacial period may ensue, and a larger and longer ice age might be the result.

However, I don't believe you can have high concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and an ice age at the same time (I know, you are not saying this), so the CO2 and other greenhouse gases have to go some where, they have to be taken out or reduced in the atmosphere to allow cooling to begin and become 'runaway'.

I think what happens is that the exchange of CO2 and other gases between the seas and oceans either switches off, or becomes a one-way street? That is to say, the seas and oceans continue taking in CO2 but stop releasing it back into the atmosphere. At the same time, as temperatures drop (due to the reducing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), ice begins to move down from the polar regions towards the equator, and the advancement of ice and the dropping of the levels of the seas and oceans because of it, CO2 becomes trapped into the ice, but the ice does not release the CO2 like the seas and oceans. Ice will continue advancing from the polar regions until an equilibrium is reached and a stasis achieved, and will stay in stasis until some event reverses the process.

Since the start of the industrial revolution in the 1700s, mankind has dug up and burned fossil fuels, and for the first 300 years, we didn't care about the polluting effect or the addition of CO2 into an atmosphere that was fine-tuned and in equilibrium. All the fossil fuel we have dug up and burned is extra to the natural amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has taken a few centuries, but our fossil fuel burning has now started to cause an imbalance in the equilibrium. The seas and oceans are becoming saturated with the stuff, and at some point, their CO2 exchange will switch to the one-way street. They will continue taking CO2 in, but will not release it back into the atmosphere, until CO2 levels in the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gases) reduce to trigger release. This will eventually allow for a cooling period to begin as CO2 levels drop. The thing is, temperature could drop severely around the planet before the sea and ocean exchange kicks in again, and this could trigger either a small cooling snap, or lead towards a full on ice age.

Of course, other factors and variables are in play as well, solar irradiance for one thing. Our sun is in a cooling trend and we are seeing a continuing reduction in solar irradiance year-on-year. This could turn out to be bad timing for us? If the equilibrium switched to a cooling snap while the sun continues to reduce its solar irradiance, such a combination could help to drop temperatures around the planet quite severely.

Anyway, after all that. The point being made, as stated earlier, is that our fossil fuel burning is extra CO2 in the atmosphere. If we had not burned 300 years worth of fossil fuels, we would not be seeing the warming trend, and nor would we be seeing moderate climates in temperate zones disrupted and chaotic.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Did you pay to read that article? I followed the links and got a fuzzy article after page 1.

No. It's the full text of the source article. It's about field studies. In the real world. Not in a greenhouse. Not with CO2 levels of 5,000 ppm.

Funny, that's what climate zealots claim the Earth is, a greenhouse with trapped gases and thermal energy. Are you saying it isn't, Phage?

Yes. I'm saying that. And I don't know about zealots but scientists don't say the Earth is a greenhouse. Scientists don't say the Earth has a carefully controlled environment.

Phage:

...scientists don't say the Earth is a greenhouse. Scientists don't say the Earth has a carefully controlled environment.

Spot on. The earth is not a greenhouse, it has an atmosphere that combines a number of gases in continuously varying quantities. Some of the gases react in a 'greenhouse' way by inhibiting some of the albedo (reflectivity) of the earth, thus holding some of the solar energy (the sun's irradiance) at the lower levels of atmosphere. If those gases that act or react in a greenhouse way are more abundant than in previous years, the natural equilibrium is placed in imbalance, and a warming trend slowly begins, and it continues until the greenhouse gases reduce.

If there is no reduction in the greenhouse gases, a disruption to climates and local weather systems around the planet begins (we are in this phase now). A lower atmosphere continuously warming exhibits greater energy kicks to weather systems, making storms more intense and powerful. It also leads (naturally) to greater polar ice melt which sends more water into the seas and oceans, giving them greater depth to act as carbon sinks. All this fresh water coming off land-based ice will affect submarine oceanic currents, and cause desalination, and can potentially 'switch off' the currents, adding to the chaotic weather systems and affecting the climates of other land areas.

Mankind's industrial revolution has burned 300 years worth of fossil fuels, that wouldn't normally (i.e., naturally) have been burned and would not have added extra CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the natural and finely-tuned amounts. Our activities are not altogether causal, but are certainly contributive to the imbalance and to the warming.

The issue now is all about runaway effects and triggers, and the scale in time for them to work in our favour. At the moment, the time scales are unfavourable, and we are going to experience some effects that in areas around the world will be catastrophic in years to come.

Stated simplistically, I am confident you are probably aware of this already.

I did some ozone tests in regard to this thread.
I made a jacob's ladder & fed it HVAC & filed a jar with it, then put a litmus paper in there.
The litmus showed a PH of 1 in a few minutes, indicating highly acidic.

Having researched further, i thought it wise to not run it for any length of time indoors, LOL
But i have been breathing ozone most of my life, & feel no ill effects.
Wierd.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: AntiPC

Sorry to break it to you, but AGW was proven to be true long before politics got involved, and long before any attempt to study historical data started.

You see, we don't need historical data to prove its a problem, because the greenhouse effect is a legitimate proven phenomena proven by physics.

It's quite simple physics really... Radiation comes in at one wavelength, changes wavelength when its absorbed and radiated by Earth, and that new wavelength of radiation can't escape our atmosphere, so it gets trapped as heat. Its the greenhouse effect... can't be denied. It is also proven by experiments that increasing the greenhouse gases also increases the greenhouse effect.

There is nothing left to argue about. The debate is over.
The only reason anyone is looking at historical data is to decide how long we have before the effects completely destroy us. To predict the future. It's not to prove the problem exists, because that was proven long ago.

There is no denying AGW. Only the uneducated deny it these days.

I feel like I have to correct this. Nobody is denying that CLIMATE CHANGE happens. AGW is the term for humans causing the warming. Just as not one person can answer the question with any certainty "how much is man's activity responsible for the warming", we all are in the infancy of understanding all this on a global scale. There are quite a few factors involved that may or may not be taken into account.

All we know for sure at this point is, right now, the planet is warming, and we are producing more C02 then the Earth does naturally.

The Seas have been rising at a pretty steady rate for thousands of years. (in actuality, the land usually sinks a bit, but the same effect is achieved)

We are coming out of an ice age, so if temperatures weren't rising, it would be a problem.

We are pigs who pollute and destroy most of what we find.

All of those are known truths, but none of them seem to answer the big question. So it's kind of safe to say, we have a lot to learn, and no, debate is not over.