CO2 Content of Atmosphere

[magnemoe]

And to return to those levels would mean a mass extinction ... like what happened at the end of the Permian, when those levels shot up really high.

Permian extinction: biggest in the fossil record.

The analogy may not be very good, and CO2 levels may have been higher in the past - but that doesn't mean dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a good idea.

Note that the permian co2 spike might be caused partial of the extinction of most life and the largest volcano event we know about.

In short, volcano emits lots of smoke who blanket earth it also release lots of co2 but this is not the main problem, the problem is the smoke who blocks sunlight and the other effects.

mass extinction causes more co2 and reduces uptake until life come back.

[RuBisCO]

The total energy output and carbon sequestering power of Earth's photosynthetic biosphere is not something to ignore, just look at how CO2 levels fluctuate over the year as crops grow and die.

If we could create green algea blooms in the deep ocean and that algae sinks to the bottom and IF its carbon remains traped there for centuries then we could control our planets CO2 levels with only a few billion dollars a year: easy Geoforming.

[arkie87]

Note that the permian co2 spike might be caused partial of the extinction of most life and the largest volcano event we know about.

In short, volcano emits lots of smoke who blanket earth it also release lots of co2 but this is not the main problem, the problem is the smoke who blocks sunlight and the other effects.

mass extinction causes more co2 and reduces uptake until life come back.

Question, if the smoke blocks the sunlight, and CO2 blocks the earth's heat from being released via infrared radiation, how are scientists sure if the earth should get colder or warmer?

[magnemoe]

not sure what you mean. I dint understand the sentence.

The global warming because of co2 emissions is an short term problem. An 100 year solution is more than good enough.

Both new energy sources and limited quantity of fossil fuel ensures this.

That is an 100 year solution who don't release all the deposited co2 at once but over time.

Yeah, that is a good point that I dint mention. Let me further clarify this to others:

Now atmosphere contains 800 Gt of co2, but 200 years back was like 550 Gt, that increase of 250 gt extra in the atmosphere only contribute to 2 gt of extra co2 captured by year on the oceans. So is clear that nature by it self cant compesate the extra co2 emissions.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

Yeah it may be similar as use water irrigation and fertilizers on land. It may help, we just need to control it.

Where is the 50 millions years value come from? In my example I said that 50 years (strong time lapse of human activity) is nothing compared with climate change times. So nature can not balance this.

[KerikBalm]

Nice. Now we've got examples of both Godwin's law and Poe's law in the same thread!

Just doing my part... but I dare not rule 34 it...

Note that the permian co2 spike might be caused partial of the extinction of most life and the largest volcano event we know about.

In short, volcano emits lots of smoke who blanket earth it also release lots of co2 but this is not the main problem, the problem is the smoke who blocks sunlight and the other effects.

mass extinction causes more co2 and reduces uptake until life come back.

The extinction seems to have occured in phases, with millions of years in between... aerosolls wouldn't have stayed around that long.

We need to create a strain of genetically modified bovines that are able to absorb more CO2 than they expend.

Yea... and then we have our engineers invent a perpetual motion machine that creates more energy than it uses, and we can stop emitting CO2, and bring the concentration down. Then all of our problems are solved!

[Kryten]

Question, if the smoke blocks the sunlight, and CO2 blocks the earth's heat from being released via infrared radiation, how are scientists sure if the earth should get colder or warmer?

Because we have detailed models of this, we aren't just working off vague assertions.

[arkie87]

Because we have detailed models of this, we aren't just working off vague assertions.

Models rely on assumptions and simplifications. Models can be made to show whatever result you want. Without knowing the assumptions and equations the model uses, it is impossible to know how detailed it is...

It doesnt matter THAT models show this to be true, what matters is WHY models show this to be true... any comment on that?

I say this as someone who has spent the first three years of my PhD doing modeling work and simulations.

There is the age-old adage that goes:

No one trusts modeling work except for the person who made it; everyone trusts experimental work except for the person who did it.

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[magnemoe]

Because we have detailed models of this, we aren't just working off vague assertions.

However we don't have that much data about the permian extinction event. We know about the Siberian trap "super volcano" and the co2 spike, however some indications on the traps being created by an major impact on the other side of earth.

My guess would be cooling first, think an very strong nuclear winter, however this only last a few years, then the co2 get to work, yes it would generate extra effects, the organisms who survived the winter would not be very suitable in the heat who followed it, you would still have lots of other populations from the volcano left who would make things worse.

[Kryten]

It doesnt matter THAT models show this to be true, what matters is WHY models show this to be true... any comment on that?

Again, this would only make sense in the past. We know there's net warming now, we've measured it.

[arkie87]

Again, this would only make sense in the past. We know there's net warming now, we've measured it.

Net warming has amounted to something like 0.5-0.6°C.

Standard accuracy of thermocouples is 0.5°C.

If i take my 3000$ DAQ system and measure Ice water temperature, it reads 0.6°C, and not 0°C.... and these measurements are performed indoors at room temperature. Outdoor measurements are much more complicated and require careful cold junction compensation to get accurate measurements with such a small deltaT.

Anyway, i dont want to discuss global warming here; i wanted to focus on CO2, since that is the topic of this thread...

[AngelLestat]

I am confused by your calculations. You said now 800Gton CO2 but 200 years ago it was 550Gt, which is (800-550)/200 0.75 Gt/yr, right?

You said the ocean now captures 2Gt/yr more, which is 3x the average rate we have been adding it, correct?

But you can not take the average, because 200 years ago we release almost nothing of co2 to the atmosphere compared to now. And even if we reduce the amount of co2 emissions by year, the overall emission will keep rising, because the current earth temperature rise, more water vapor, more methane and co2 due permafrost melting, less ice --> lower sun refraction, etc.

That is why everbody said that if we reach to the 2 degress celcius increase then we reach the point of no return, because it does not matter if we dont emmit more co2 at that point, the earth will intensify a chain of events which will release by it self a lot more greenhouse gasses which cannot be stoped, and in case we can, it will cost a LOT more than do it now.

This is like dodge an asteroid, if you do it 10 years before, you dont need much energy, if you do it the last year, it will be 1000 times harded.

Take into account that the last time earth had these co2 values, humans did not exist.

That is very true. Natural climate change appears to be slow (hundreds, thousands or millions of years). However, the fact that 30-40% of human CO2 emissions are presently absorbed by the oceans indicate that the time constant/response time of the oceans are much faster than those of natural climate change, no? Otherwise, all of the CO2 we release would stay in the atmosphere until the earth could react. This clearly isnt the case since sources say 30-40% of the CO2 is absorbed by the ocean alone and contributes to ocean acidification.

Yeah, again not total sure what you mean by 30% to 40%, the problem here is that not because co2 levels rise we would have always a constant % that will be absorbed, global warming may change local weather, wet places may become dry, and dry places wet. But forest, towns and crops places can not be relocated from one day to the other, which end up dying --> higher levels of co2, seas acidification may also become a problem for life, if we dont increase the amount of life we can not absorb much co2.

The fact that it takes much longer for natural climate change to occur might indicate it is driven by slow periodic processes, and not that the earth takes soo long to react.

But we already understand which are the process that contributes to co2 capture, but all evidence point that all those process will weaken with the time rather than strengthened.

Note that the permian co2 spike might be caused partial of the extinction of most life and the largest volcano event we know about.

In short, volcano emits lots of smoke who blanket earth it also release lots of co2 but this is not the main problem, the problem is the smoke who blocks sunlight and the other effects.

mass extinction causes more co2 and reduces uptake until life come back.

Yeah but just to clarify, there was some strong volcano events which burn huge forest and started an chain of events which end up with mass extintions, but those are not common, are event that happens once every hundred of millons of years.

In fact, if we take into account all the earth eruptions or volcano activities in the last 100 years, that total co2 is equal to the co2 released by human activity this last year.

[arkie87]

But you can not take the average, because 200 years ago we release almost nothing of co2 to the atmosphere compared to now.

Yes, co2 release has not been linear, but rather exponential, which is definitely the reason why the current rate of CO2 capture appears to exceed the rate we have been releasing it. That said, i'm not sure why you bothered to even mention those statistics, because, as stated, they appear to eliminate your argument, rather than bolster it.

Yeah, again not total sure what you mean by 30% to 40%, the problem here is that not because co2 levels rise we would have always a constant % that will be absorbed, global warming may change local weather, wet places may become dry, and dry places wet. But forest, towns and crops places can not be relocated from one day to the other, which end up dying --> higher levels of co2, seas acidification may also become a problem for life, if we dont increase the amount of life we can not absorb much co2.

the 30-40% is quoted everywhere, even on wikipedia's carbon-dioxide webpage. I have quoted the relevant text:

Most of the CO2 taken up by the ocean, which is about 30% of the total released into the atmosphere,[62] forms carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate. Some of these chemical species are consumed by photosynthetic organisms that remove carbon from the cycle. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has led to decreasing alkalinity of seawater...

NOAA states in their May 2008 "State of the science fact sheet for ocean acidification" that:

"The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in chemical reactions that lower ocean pH. This has caused an increase in hydrogen ion (acidity) of about 30% since the start of the industrial age through a process known as "ocean acidification."

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[AngelLestat]

Yes, co2 release has not been linear, but rather exponential, which is definitely the reason why the current rate of CO2 capture appears to exceed the rate we have been releasing it. That said, i'm not sure why you bothered to even mention those statistics, because, as stated, they appear to eliminate your argument, rather than bolster it.

What? the co2 capture by seas and trees is always lower than the amount released!

Take a good look to the graph, you are mistaken the cycle values with the real co2 capture.

Seas and trees capture 5 gt by year, humans release 9 gt by year, that equal to 4 gt extra co2 by year, in 50 year (even with constant emission and ignoring emissions due global warming) we would have 200 gt extra co2 in the atmosphere, which 800 + 200 = 1000 gt. (of course it will be higher than that due many effect that I already explain)

If we do the cold water pump technique to increase plants and plakton, only a small porcentage of all that added co2 cycle will be captured by oceans.

the 30-40% is quoted everywhere, even on wikipedia's carbon-dioxide webpage. I have quoted the relevant text

Then is how I said it, but you dint confirm it, you are talking of the overall cycle, but you can not take the amount of co2 captured by the cycle, because it release it again in the next season.

[arkie87]

What? the co2 capture by seas and trees is always lower than the amount released!

Take a good look to the graph, you are mistaken the cycle values with the real co2 capture.

Seas and trees capture 5 gt by year, humans release 9 gt by year, that equal to 4 gt extra co2 by year, in 50 year (even with constant emission and ignoring emissions due global warming) we would have 200 gt extra co2 in the atmosphere, which 800 + 200 = 1000 gt. (of course it will be higher than that due many effect that I already explain)

If we do the cold water pump technique to increase plants and plakton, only a small porcentage of all that added co2 cycle will be captured by oceans.

You seem to be misinterpreting everything i am saying... I wasnt claiming more CO2 is absorbed than is released. That would be crazy talk. I was referring to this statement YOU made:

Yeah, that is a good point that I dint mention. Let me further clarify this to others:

Now atmosphere contains 800 Gt of co2, but 200 years back was like 550 Gt, that increase of 250 gt extra in the atmosphere only contribute to 2 gt of extra co2 captured by year on the oceans. So is clear that nature by it self cant compesate the extra co2 emissions.

I am confused by your calculations. You said now 800Gton CO2 but 200 years ago it was 550Gt, which is (800-550)/200 0.75 Gt/yr, right?

You said the ocean now captures 2Gt/yr more, which is 3x the average rate we have been adding it, correct?

The reason it seems we are absorbing CO2 into the oceans 3x faster than we have been releasing it on average since 200 years ago is because we have not been releasing it at a steady rate, but rather, exponentially.

Capeesh?

Then is how I said it, but you dint confirm it, you are talking of the overall cycle, but you can not take the amount of co2 captured by the cycle, because it release it again in the next season.

no idea what you are trying to say here.

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[peadar1987]

Net warming has amounted to something like 0.5-0.6°C.

Standard accuracy of thermocouples is 0.5°C.

Which would indeed pose a problem if we only had one thermocouple with which to measure things.

[arkie87]

Which would indeed pose a problem if we only had one thermocouple with which to measure things.

Many independent measurements or repeated measurements can fix random error. Systematic error, which is the kind of error i find when trying to measure ice-water, is not eliminated by repetitions.

Making accurate absolute temperature measurements is NOT an easy task, especially when cold-junction temperature varies wildly. Plus, i'm sure you have heard about the global warming hiatus since ~2000, which scientists recently explained by systematically shifting temperatures one way, due to assumed systematic errors in their measurements... I do not think i need to explain why that is bad science...

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[Albert VDS]

Plus, i'm sure you have heard about the global warming hiatus since ~2000, which scientists recently explained by systematically shifting temperatures one way, due to assumed systematic errors in their measurements... I do not think i need to explain why that is bad science...

No warming hiatus for extreme hot temperatures

[peadar1987]

Many independent measurements or repeated measurements can fix random error. Systematic error, which is the kind of error i find when trying to measure ice-water, is not eliminated by repetitions.

With your one thermocouple. Thermocouple error is random, get a large enough number of thermocouples with a randomly distributed error, and they will give you the true temperature.

Making accurate absolute temperature measurements is NOT an easy task, especially when cold-junction temperature varies wildly. Plus, i'm sure you have heard about the global warming hiatus since ~2000, which scientists recently explained by systematically shifting temperatures one way, due to assumed systematic errors in their measurements... I do not think i need to explain why that is bad science...

Such a hiatus does not exist. 1998 and 2000 were anomalously warm years. If you selectively choose to start your graph from either of them, as many deniers do, the trend looks flat. If you start in 2001, or any year prior to 1996, you see the same upward trend, with the individual results scattered above and below the travelling mean, exactly as you would expect from a noisy signal. Cherry picking 1998 as your base point is about as good a case against anthropogenic climate change as using December is for the opposing case.

[arkie87]

With your one thermocouple. Thermocouple error is random, get a large enough number of thermocouples with a randomly distributed error, and they will give you the true temperature.

The thermocouples i am using have been selected to be accurate to within 0.1°C. The error is from the DAQ itself, not from the thermocouple i am using. I have verified the offset with more than one thermocouple. All report 0.6°C instead of 0°C.

Such a hiatus does not exist. 1998 and 2000 were anomalously warm years. If you selectively choose to start your graph from either of them, as many deniers do, the trend looks flat. If you start in 2001, or any year prior to 1996, you see the same upward trend, with the individual results scattered above and below the travelling mean, exactly as you would expect from a noisy signal. Cherry picking 1998 as your base point is about as good a case against anthropogenic climate change as using December is for the opposing case.

The data I have seen does not cherry pick anything, but uses the raw data to show that global average temperatures have decreases since 1998. Here is a figure from the NOAA:

If such a hiatus doesnt exist, then why have i seen article after article trying to explain why it actually doesnt exist (despite the obvious change in slope of the data)?

Also, why are the uncertainty bars so large if thousands of thermocouples are being used?

If we are accurately measuring average temperature, the trend should also be less noisy, no?

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[Kryten]

It honestly makes me sad that somebody on a forum about space exploration thinks we get all our climate information from ground-based thermocouples.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Kryten

[magnemoe]

Yeah but just to clarify, there was some strong volcano events which burn huge forest and started an chain of events which end up with mass extintions, but those are not common, are event that happens once every hundred of millons of years.

In fact, if we take into account all the earth eruptions or volcano activities in the last 100 years, that total co2 is equal to the co2 released by human activity this last year.

Siberian traps was not an normal volcano, neither something like normal super volcano but something far larger.

It might also go on for an long time unlike an asteroid impact who is an one time event.

We have not had serious amount of volcanic activity for a long time, think its 60k years since last super volcano. They are rare and does not cause global extinction events.

The real problem with super volcanoes is the local destruction and the clouds not the co2, Siberian trap was again of another magnitude.

Average emissions of co2 from volcanoes has to be absorbed again or co2 level would rise until an new balance was established as seen on the diagram posted earlier.

Might be an bit different for volcanoes as its not an 100 year peak but overall level.

[arkie87]

It honestly makes me bad that somebody on a forum about space exploration thinks we get all our climate information from ground-based thermocouples.

Of course not. They measure in the ocean too. But they do not cover the entire pacific or atlantic for obvious reasons, so they have to extrapolate large swaths of ocean temperature.

They also use satellites, but IR temperature measurements are 100x more difficult than land based measurements (since IR measurements measure heat flux, and not temperature directly, one has to compensate for emissivity of the target)

Am i missing anything?

I'm not sure why it makes you bad? Perhaps you are a naughty boy?

Edited June 26, 2015 by arkie87

[Kryten]

Eumetsat, among others can directly measure solar influx and reflected radiation, rendering direct temperature results pretty much irrelevant.

[arkie87]

It honestly makes me sad that somebody on a forum about space exploration thinks we get all our climate information from ground-based thermocouples.

Oh, i see what you meant now, after your edit. Now i get the irony. Hehehe.

- - - Updated - - -

Eumetsat, among others can directly measure solar influx and reflected radiation, rendering direct temperature results pretty much irrelevant.

How do satellites compensate for emitted vs. reflected radiation, especially since emissivity and reflectivity vary based on what you are looking at (clouds, snow, land, water, desert, even the atmosphere itself... each have their own values)-- how does the satellite compensate for this?

It's hard enough to make accurate IR measurements in the lab with infrared paint and a calibrated 100,000$ IR camera...

[Kryten]

Oh, i see what you meant now, after your edit. Now i get the irony. Hehehe.

- - - Updated - - -

How do satellites compensate for emitted vs. reflected radiation, especially since emissivity and reflectivity vary based on what you are looking at (clouds, snow, land, water, desert, even the atmosphere itself... each have their own values)-- how does the satellite compensate for this?

It doesn't have to, it can measure solar influx directly (being, y'know, in space). Obviously emissivity and reflectivity will render this pretty useless for predicting e.g. temperature at a local level, but gives a nice whole-globe model of radiative forcing.