Bishop Hill Andrew Watson
May 10, 2011 All done
Q2 ??? Feedback for h20 is not positive. Also no trpospheric hot spot. A: many uncertainties. Possible that RH has gone down. That's why wide uncertainty estimates.
Q1 Mike Kelly. Can we estimate past h20 levels. What is the effect? Can be done. Doesn't know answer.
Such rapid change is rare in Earth history
Good reason to believe that this will change ckimate. Not certain.
Increase in co2 definitelyanthropogenic
Long calc to get to estimates. Includes estimate of climate sensitivity which gives estimate of rate of rock weathering.
No long term measurements of co2 (>550my). Only proxies.
Talking about co2 lagging temp. V uncertain Not consistent with idea that co2 is a cause he says. yay!!! Consistent with amplifying effect.
Close relationship between atm co2 and antarctic consistent with greenhouse theory.
Discussion of water vapour as a GHG.
Radiative transfer calcs are well known and simple
Decline in atmospheric o2 matches rise in co2, so co2 can't be coming from volcanoes. Must be burning of fossil fuels. Oceans and land taking up co2
Reader Comments (25)
Ummm...increase in CO2 by 100 ppm implies decline in O2 by 100ppm. (1 part in 10,000) Can they really consistently detect a change in global oxygen content to this level of accuracy? Especially since there was no real reason to measure it well back in the pre-Scare days?
Example : old days. Oxygen content : 18.24%. Now 18.23%. Therefore global warming.
H'mmm
Could you please ask him how the earth system precisely absorbs the same fraction of CO2 year after year? Just a curious question.
I still want to know how much of Earth's air is locked away under compression in the tyres (tires) of the world's motor fleet? How does this thinner, or less by volume, atmosphere effect our weather? Our brains?
Latimer Alder,
I think your sums are wrong, but your question is a good one.
If you burn fossil fuel at, say, a weighted average of C4H8 (somewhere between gas and liquid fuels), you need 6 moles of oxygen to generate 4 moles of CO2. Some of the oxygen goes to produce water vapour. Actual oxygen consumption tends to be higher because of other combusion by-products.
So you might expect 150 to 200ppm change in O2 for every additional 100ppm of CO2.
However, these both relate to changes in atmospheric concentration on a like-for-like basis.
So your final question should have been:
Old days Oxygen content 18.24%. Now 18.225%.
Makes a huge difference. Er...OK forget it.
"Radiative transfer calcs are well known and simple"
and tell us one small part of the total heat transfer in the atmosphere, but cannot be used to deduce temperature changes unless convective and evaporative heat transfer is known.
@Roger Carr
I've always wanted to know how many billions of tonnes of sea water are displaced by all the earth's boats, and what contribution that makes to rising sea levels? I've stood on a few of the earth's greatest glaciers, and I've also been aboard the USS Constellation. Both quite big.
@Paul_k
It doesn't really matter since the overall effect is tiny, but your maths only works if you assume a formula for the fuel of the molar proportion CxH2x. Which may or may not be true. Could be there's some nitrogen in there, soem sulphur, some phsophorus. Could be an enzymatic reaction not a 'burning'. Coudld be anthracite which is very carbon rich. Could be diamond which is 100% carbon.....
Mine however is more general in that it makes absolutely no assumptions about the nature of the fuel nor of the reaction mechanism. Just a straightforward generic observation that
C + O2 ---> CO2
however it is done and wherever it is sourced. If there are other byproducts (water, nitrogen dioxide, SO2, BANGs, noise, soot...) so be it. But they aren't directly involved in the oxidation of carbon.
That's all. Thanks anyway...nice to see some chemistry around!
@Latimer Alder,
"Mine however is more general in that it makes absolutely no assumptions about the nature of the fuel nor of the reaction mechanism. Just a straightforward generic observation that
C + O2 ---> CO2 "
I can't agree with you, Latimer. Diamond doesn't burn too well. It may be reasonable to ignore combustion byproducts - since the main ones - NOXs and SOXs - eventually go through reduction chemistry and return the oxygen to atmosphere. But the hydrogen in the combusted fossil fuels must take up its share of atmospheric oxygen. Once it is water, it's water, and eliminated from the atmospheric oxygen store. I won't get into an argument about what the molar ratio should be, merely note that we could estimate it to first order by looking at the ratio of different fuels burned on a global basis. I will persist in saying though that the take-up of oxygen by burning fossil fuels has to be significantly greater than a one oxygen molecule to one carbon atom.
Increase in co2 definitelyanthropogenic
No long term measurements of co2 (>550my). Only proxies.
//
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Decline in atmospheric o2 matches rise in co2, so co2 can't be coming from volcanoes. Must be burning of fossil fuels. Oceans and land taking up co2
Worst piece of scientific deduction I have ever seen!!
I will persist in saying though that the take-up of oxygen by burning fossil fuels has to be significantly greater than a one oxygen molecule to one carbon atom.
Don't forget to allow for 03
@paul_k
We'll have to agree to disagree. It may be that some (or many but not all) ways of generating CO2 also generate H2O. or NOx or SO2 or even phosphates... It is also true that most plants take CO2 and H2O and some handy photons to generate sugars and oxygen...which you can think of as a way of breaking down water back to oxygen...as part of the cycle you described for nitrogen and sulphur oxides.
It could be that soembody somewhere in a lab does something different with solar arrays and cold fusion and a secret hokey cokey 2012 machine. But it doesn't matter. We can assume that these are all in equlibrium. Neither added nor lessened.
If you want to show that oxygen depletion matches CO2 production (and that the CO2 is not in equliibrium) teh only equation you need is
C + O2 --> CO2.
All the others balance themselves out.
@stephen
Consider the equation of the form:
6CO2 + 6H2O + hv ---> C6H12O6+ 6O2 (photosynthesis)
Note that CO2 and water are consumed and molecular oxygen liberated once more. The books balance.
photosynthesis --- 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2
Have there been studies on the increased production of oxygen via photosynthesis due to the increase in CO2 since the end of the LIA?
chemical books might balance, but assumptions about the energy balance may not. One thing that's often puzzled me is the crudity of energy balance calculations in climate dogma. A greening planet as a result of more CO2, or just natural warming should mean more energy converted into carbohydrates etc by plants, so Ein != Eout if more energy is being absorbed and converted. As Pielke Snr says, it's about Joules, not Kelvin or Celsius.
LOL@Latimer :)
.............. well that needs to be explained because if there was/is a profound amplifying effect the planet would have experienced runaway temps.
This analysis shows the great uncertainty regarding amplifying effects in ice core data.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/explaining-ice-core-co2-lag/
@paul in sweden
Climatological studies show that the increase in CO2 has led to an increase by photosynthesis in concentration of that very dangerous gas ..oxygen.
Oxygen is so bad because when it reacts with everyday hydrogen, it forms the even worse Dihydrogen Monoxide..which is associated with the removal of mountain ranges, drownings, tsunamis, teh flooding of Brisbane etc. Drinking DHM combined with everyday ethanol also produces dangerous drunkenness. DHM should receive the same level of regulation and scrutiny as class A drugs...possession for commercial purposes should lead to a severe jail term - with only bread to eat and water to drink (oops!)
The only known way to remove the dangerous oxygen from the atmosphere is to combine it with carbon by burning to sequester it as carbon dioxide...............
Latimer, I was LOL because apparently I went to comment at the same time as you(but I took my sweet time), and we were thinking along the same lines. I thought it was pretty cool that someone else somewhere on this screwed up planet read Andrew's post, just when I did, and not only thought along the same lines as myself but also independently posted his similar thoughts and in this case preceded me.
:)
I hope, after Watson's presentation, somebody called out ....... "What an asshole!"
It seems to be an acceptable expression of dissent in his scientific circle.
"I still want to know how much of Earth's air is locked away under compression in the tyres (tires) of the world's motor fleet? How does this thinner, or less by volume, atmosphere effect our weather? Our brains?"
The effects of hypoxia are well known. Fuzzy-mindedness, inability to do simple calculations, belief in global warming.
"Decline in atmospheric o2 matches rise in co2, so co2 can't be coming from volcanoes."
By "matches," this bloke must mean "The minus sign matches the plus sign." ABYSMAL FAIL.
Note that there are estimated to be ~3 million subsea volcanoes. See also the Lake Nyos CO2 inlet calculations. Total CO2 from volcanoes is probably huge, on the order of 100 gigatonnes per year. .
http://iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
@paul in sweden
Serendipity does happen!
But I don't take it to mean that the gods are intervening, Just that two of us remember enough chemistry to remember that the C+O2 --> CO2 + energy reaction isn't quite the end of the story. Otherwise we'd all have died of CO2 suffocation yonks ago.
@Latimer Alder,
I believe I have the solution to all of your problems. I have discovered that in a little-known country called Scotland, they have a method of deoxygenating sugars produced by photosynthesis to convert them to C2H5OH with the added benefit that this releases vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Be warned, however, that if you mix this product with a little dihydrogen monoxide, it can get you killed in Scottish pubs. I suspect that you have been consuming some of this product without the diluent effect of the dihydrogen monoxide, and this explains your persistent problem with the chemical balance of the atmosphere.
Measuring oxygen as a provy is thwart with uncertainties since much oxygen is used when forest fires burn and this probably dwarfs that used in the anthropogenic combustion of hydro carbons.
"Measuring oxygen as a provy is thwart with uncertainties since much oxygen is used when forest fires burn and this probably dwarfs that used in the anthropogenic combustion of hydro carbons."--R. Verney
Aerobic decomposition of leaves, buffalo poop, and other organic matter is also a significant source of CO2.