Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« An unfortunate series of incidents - Josh 315 | Main | Patchy resigns »
Tuesday
Feb242015

Salby in London

Another date for your diaries...

Prof. Murry Salby presents

Control of Atmospheric CO2

His new research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It reveals the mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, including its increase during the 20th century. Thereby, the analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emission.

Tuesday 17th March, 7.00 for 7.30pm

Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street SW1P 3DW

Westminster tube, then a ten minute walk past Parliament, turn right up Great Peter St. then 4th left into Marsham St. The EC entrance is ~30 yards on the left. Or bus number 507 from Victoria to the corner of Horseferry Road and Marsham Street.

Free admission (donations welcome) but please book:

philip.foster17@ntlworld.com 01480 399098

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (49)

That news is worth repeating!

Feb 24, 2015 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteamboat McGoo

This is showing as a duplicate post to me Bish.

Best get it sorted before the comment threads get split.
[Thanks,done now. BH}

Feb 24, 2015 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterclovis marcus

This research is very important for our society because it can show how deeply are we contaminated with carbon and how the atmosphere looks today when the most of us use fossil fuel based vehicles.

http://www.alternative-energies.net/the-true-costs-of-pollution/

Nobody will truly stop producing CO2 emissions soon, but maybe some day we will understand that there is no other way.

Feb 24, 2015 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJane

@Jane: anthropogenic net CO2 is overestimated by a factor of 5 according to Salby. My own work shows the Enhanced GHE does not exist and the non-enhanced version is exactly offset by the water cycle, proved by no RSS warming for 18+ years. [CO2] will probably peak at ~450 ppmV as increased chlorophyl kinetics kick in. The next move is to the new Little Ice Age, as is being shown in the US and Russia, and was predicted a long time ago by Abdumassatov.

Feb 24, 2015 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

...how deeply are we contaminated with carbon...

If you feel contaminated with carbon, perhaps you should consider living without it?

Feb 24, 2015 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterdodgy geezer

Calamity Jam, Contaminy Jane.
========================

Feb 24, 2015 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Will there be a whipround for a leaving present for Pachuri?

Feb 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Jane the day any of us stop producing CO2 emissions regularly, is the day we die.

Thanks for your concern, but do read some basic science text books, before they get recycled into something useless.

Feb 24, 2015 at 6:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Jane, it is right and proper that we consider pollution and we have been polluting considerably longer than your article suggests. But wherever you consider the costs of pollution, you also have to consider the benefits of pollution. If 200,000 premature deaths are attributable to fossil fuel burning, then consider the billions who's lives are made possible by the same fossil fuels. Women in particular have much to be greatful for. I doubt there is a single person here who would give fossil fuels a second thought if there was a suitable alternative but wind and solar are cartoon energy sources and there is no change in sight.

Air pollution, while unfortunate has enabled us to clean up many of the other areas in our lives from good drinking water to reforestation because we no longer denude our countryside... well we didn't until some idiot decided burning trees in power stations was a good idea.

Of course many of the real pollutants are fairly easy to remove in large power stations. This does not include CO2, which is not pollution as such. The only reason to stop using fossil fuels is because of AGW. Since the benefits are huge, we should be very wary of taking another path because of fairly dubious science.

Of course, if you're convinced then it's not our responsibility to change your mind. By all means cut your CO2, just don't make us do the same.

Feb 24, 2015 at 7:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I hope someone will record it and put on YouTube or other public video site. There's no way I can participate but I'm really interested.

Feb 24, 2015 at 10:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterKasuha

Who is sponsoring this talk? A contact name is mentioned, but that is all.

Sounds like a significant piece of work. It would be good if it were eventually published.

Murry Salby's Hamburg presentation was fascinating in the results he outlined. Too bad it has never been published in detail (so far as I know) but understandable in view of the circumstances involving Macquarie University.

Feb 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I am polluted with carbon to the very essence of my being.
Those dirty ORGANIC molecules will have to be detoxed away.

Feb 25, 2015 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

Martin A writes:
"Who is sponsoring this talk? A contact name is mentioned, but that is all.
Sounds like a significant piece of work. It would be good if it were eventually published."

The fact is, I am.... as on the (loosely under 'repeal the climate Change Act' banner, hence any donations gratefully received. Murry is paying his way to Europe but I am needing to cover hall hire and local travel and filming costs.
my email is as on the notice of the meeting.

Feb 25, 2015 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Foster

Philip,
Well, if you're looking for someone who will present a scientifically credible argument, you're almost certainly wasting your money (well, wasting the money that's donated). On the other hand, if you're just looking for some kind of entertainment, maybe it will be money well spent.

Feb 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Thanks for that Philip. I'd dearly like to be there - I attended Murry Salby's House of Commons talk - but getting to Westminster and back from Normandy would be quite a trek.

Just my curiosity I guess but it would be interesting to know where he has been working since 2013, what resources he has and so on.

Feb 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Feb 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

A peevish comment but what would you expect.

And astronomer W. Kenneth M. Rice has published how many 600+ page texts on the physics of atmosphere and climate?

Feb 25, 2015 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

Given that I have no great interest in re-hashing my arguments against what Salby has presented in the past, I thought I would simply link to the Discussion thread about Salby. Well worth reading what Gavin Cawley has to say.

Feb 25, 2015 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

How extraordinary..."blogger Anders is not interested in debate" shock. It is your standard tactic. The smear, the innuendo, the strenuous denials of being interested in the topic are part of your DNA.

Feb 25, 2015 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Does anyone have a link to a clear written statement of Salby's hypothesis? I can find little but his video, which was way too far into the TLDW category for me.

Thanks,

w.

Feb 25, 2015 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterWillis Eschenbach

Presumably that is the Gavin Crawley who divided instead of multiplying.

Feb 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

@ diogenes

Just click the link. If you read the thread then you will see that "And then there's Physics" is merely being efficient as it is pretty much all there. I thought the points there were clear enough in taking apart Mr Salby's thesis. You care to read then refute or just ad hominem attacks on ATTP?

Thanks ATTP for the links. Most illuminating. I'm London based but have little interest in seeing someone speak on these matters who has recently been sacked for deceptive conduct from an academic post. What do the "skeptics" here then think of his abilities to also fabricate the science.

Was unaware of how someone like this gets to present at the House of Commons. Anyone here care to let me know who invited him? And in what capacity?

Also how does he fund himself these days given that he does not (I believe) have an academic post anymore? Relevant I think given the evidence around Mr Soon.

Feb 25, 2015 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterOnbyaccident

@and then there's physics

sir, I did read your link about refuting Salby. In point 1 of your basic points, you say that a 1 degree increase, increases co2 by 120ppm. And then you go on to say that this suggests at some point in the past, this means co2 levels in the atmosphere must have been 0 or negative at one point. That sounds like completely your opinion to me and it doesn't make sense to me. I think it is well agreed upon that historic levels of co2 have been much higher than the present, along with GAT.

You say that we are the only source that emits more than it absorbs. That is either incompetent or a blatant lie on your part. The IPCC states in its 2013 AR5 WG1 that human emissions account for 4.5% of total global co2 emissions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter06.pdf

page 122 please sir. Oceanic and land co2 emissions dwarf human emissions, accounting for over 95% of total emissions. Hence, you have no clue what you're talking about.

and your last point: "3. The change in C13 to C12 ratio is indicative of a biological source. However, the change in C14 to c12 ratio is indicative of it being a very old biological source (fossils)."

that point above is a minority opinion, and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed literature shows that a molecule of co2 stays in the atmosphere for <10yrs. I would think you are aware of the bomb test curves?

please let me know next time you wish to be owned/demolished. cheers.

Feb 25, 2015 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Jay Cadbury, phd

Dr. Jay Cadbury, PhD
[snip - manners]I'll respond anyway (I'm wasting my time, but - at least - it's my time to waste).


In point 1 of your basic points, you say that a 1 degree increase, increases co2 by 120ppm. And then you go on to say that this suggests at some point in the past, this means co2 levels in the atmosphere must have been 0 or negative at one point. That sounds like completely your opinion to me and it doesn't make sense to me. I think it is well agreed upon that historic levels of co2 have been much higher than the present, along with GAT.

Well, that's kind of the point. If Salby is suggesting that a 1K increase in temperature has increased atmosphere CO2 concentrations by 120ppm, then a 1K drop in temperature should reduce it by 120ppm. Since temperatures in the past have been more than 1K cooler than they are today, this would suggest that CO2 concentrations must have been - if Salby is right - negative at some point in the past, which is clearly nonsense.


You say that we are the only source that emits more than it absorbs. That is either incompetent or a blatant lie on your part. The IPCC states in its 2013 AR5 WG1 that human emissions account for 4.5% of total global co2 emissions.

Ahh, going for the lie or incompetent gambit? If you'd read what I said carefully you'd note I said emits more than it absorbs. Since we don't convert fossil fuels back into fossil fuels after burning them, our fossil fuels are an emission only. The biosphere, however, both emits and absorbs, and the oceans also emit and absorb. Also, the oceans and the biosphere actually absorb more than they emit. Therefore even though their emissions dwarf our fossil fuel emissions, their absorption also dwarfs our absorption of fossil fuels back into fossils (we don't do this) and is also larger than their emissions. If the oceans absorb more than they emit, the source can't be the oceans. If the biosphere absorbs more than it emits, it can't be the source. What's left? I've leave that for you as an exercise.


that point above is a minority opinion, and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed literature shows that a molecule of co2 stays in the atmosphere for <10yrs. I would think you are aware of the bomb test curves?

You are aware of the concept of a steady state flux? Yes, an individual CO2 molecule only spends years in the atmosphere. However, an increase in the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decays on a much longer timescale than the timescale for an individual molecule to move from the atmosphere into one of the other carbon sinks.

Anyway, that's enough from me. It's all - and more - in the link to the Discussion Thread.

Feb 25, 2015 at 10:02 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

@ Dr JC

[snip - manners] Yes human emissions are only a small part of the overall cycle but the point again is that the natural bits less us are roughly in balance but obviously vary randomly (and typically measurable). Climate change 101.

Also CO2 stays in the atmosphere for longer on average than your 10yr claim. CH4 which is much shorter lived persistance wise (thankfully!) stay up there for around 20yrs. Range of what happens to CO2 though more complex through carbon cycle but typically people speak in multi-decades or 100+ years on balance.

Dr in what by the way? [snip -manners]

Feb 25, 2015 at 11:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterOnbyaccident

[snip -response to snipped remarks}

Feb 26, 2015 at 2:09 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Would commenters please argue the points of the post without inserting rude personal remarks.

Feb 26, 2015 at 8:01 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I'm London based but have little interest in seeing someone speak on these matters who has recently been sacked for deceptive conduct from an academic post..
Feb 25, 2015 at 9:08 PM Onbyaccident

Be careful. That statement looks libellous to me.

Macquarie University's statement mentions nothing about deceptive conduct. To me, the university's statement has an odour of constructive dismissal about it (what was the subject of the class Salby is alleged not to have turned up for? it was at what level?) but without knowing more about the case, impossible to say.

Feb 26, 2015 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterBig Oil

@ Big Oil

Nope - OBA is correct as that term is exactly what is picked up if you look at the Uni's conclusions

"The University substantiated conflicts of interest violations by the Subject. The Subject
did not fully participate in the University investigation, and provided deceptive
information to the University during its investigation. The Subject resigned from his
faculty position at the University. "

and

"We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years."

Think this was reduced to three.

You may want to rescue him by inferring some unproved conspiracy on behalf of the Uni but unless you can prove that then the whole thing appears quite damming to me (and it seems to OBA and ATTP..). Am sure that if this was labelled against a genuine climate scientist he would be pilloried by this site...

Feb 26, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterWhack a Mole

Whack. I think you may be referring to a different university (from which it seems Salby was not actually fired). To say he was recently fired for deceptive conduct remains a false and evidently libellous statement.

Feb 26, 2015 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterBig Oil

@ BO

Unlikely or he would have done so by now if he had any sort of defence. All the statements put up here are easily googlable..sacked by Maquarie Uni. Investigation by US NSF (from which quotes are gleaned).

Bit of a theme though with this guy no? You "skeptics" need better representatives than this (and Mr Soon) surely...

Am mildly tempted to turn up at this talk of his but suspect I'd be in the minority with my views (unless ATTP and OBA can be persuaded to come along too ...would be good to have your scientific firepower there too guys ;-)

Feb 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterWhack a Mole


unless ATTP and OBA can be persuaded to come along too

A bit far for me. Not sure if I'd bother even if it wasn't, though :-)

Feb 26, 2015 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

and then there's physics

that a 1 degree decrease in temperature should cause a reduction of 120ppm in the atmosphere is your opinion. You are adding and if/then argument there. You operate under the premise that co2 is the main actor on temperature, Salby and I do not. That's how we had an ice age during the Ordovician period, when co2 was 4100ppm. So temperatures could be increasing and co2 in the atmosphere could be increasing, but then you have a large natural event like multiple undersea volcanoes erupting, and that can reverse the warming into a cooling phase.

I did not provide a good answer to your second point, in fact my comment was not relevant. But I would argue that there are animals that emit more co2 than humans. Simply because we aren't absorbing the co2 we emit doesn't mean the oceans and land based sources aren't absorbing it. And we don't have good information in the literature on historic annual co2 emissions and absorption from natural sources. For example, how do you know during the jurassic absorption and emission weren't substantially higher than they are today? Has the ocean always emitted 78.4 billion tonnes of co2? doubt it. Have landed sources always emitted 118.7 billion tonnes? doubt it. It has probably been higher and lower throughout history, so again you can't know if our emissions are causing the atmospheric increase.

" However, an increase in the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decays on a much longer timescale than the timescale for an individual molecule to move from the atmosphere into one of the other carbon sinks."

I don't agree with that above statement. The earth processes each molecule individually and a longstanding dispute between skeptics and alarmists is that we believe more of the co2 is going into outer space than what you predict.

Feb 26, 2015 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Jay Cadbury, phd

Whack a Mole

we will stick with Salby. You can have keep Michael Mann and co. Whack a mole, given that over 90% of people in academia are democrat, journal and university hostility is expected of skeptics. You, and Mr. Physics demonstrate a stunning lack of critical analysis of the shenanigans carried out by the scientists you support.

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Jay Cadbury, phd

Onbyaccident

the overwhelming majority of the peer review literature shows that a molecule of co2 stays in the atmosphere for less than 10years. The Ipcc in their calculations, uses a lifetime of 300 years I believe. They need to publish more on this if they want to justify a 300yr lifetime.

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Jay Cadbury, phd


that a 1 degree decrease in temperature should cause a reduction of 120ppm in the atmosphere is your opinion.

No, it's not my view. I'm pointing that this is what would happen if Salby's suggestion that temperature changes are the dominant driver of CO2 changes. It is clearly nonsense!


we believe more of the co2 is going into outer space than what you predict.

Okaaay...slowly backing away now!

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:23 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Dr JC

evidence for your assertions would be useful. Your comments to myself are barely readable but Something to indicate this vast conspiracy to which all climate scientists are party to would be truly interesting.

As for your comment to OBA - perhaps you misunderstood. It was alluded that the process (ie carbon cycle) is complex but that it keeps being supplemented by human sources hence the longer averages. An individual CO2 molecule could be reabsorbed immediately I guess (plants/ocean etc) but there is definate justification for the much longer averages than you quote. Again evidence please.

OBA feel free to re-explain if needs be.

Doctor in what by the way Dr J. I note above that OBA asks the same but no response yet. Just interested....

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterWhack a Mole

Dr JC

...and I hadn't even begun to look at your comments re ATTP.

Holy moley.....Dr J - do you really believe we are leaking CO2 to space? I can only be kind here and assume you don't really mean that...a typing aberration I assume?

Surely not?

Please ignore my request for details around your PhD. Let's just say my level of interest in this has faded somewhat...

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterWhack a Mole

Where does Salby say that a 1 degree reduction should cause a decrease of 120ppm?

the real nonsense is people like you that think 150 or 200 years of data is enough to conclude how the earth operates.

you rely on the fact that people don't know 400ppm co2 and GAT is significantly below the historical averages.

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Jay Cadbury, phd

Ok how about 800,000 years of data...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html

So you are wrong. 400ppm is pretty unprecedented for at least the past million years. Now if you were to go back to the times when there were no plants...

Again post your evidence Dr JC. I mean you did have to present something called evidence for your PhD thesis surely or did hand waving and unsubstantiated quoting of "facts" suffice in your world.

Did you buy your PhD?

Feb 26, 2015 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterWhack a Mole

Whack a Mole

a million years is a blink of an eye in earth's history. You want evidence? hahaha okay, I thought it was common knowledge we are way below GAT and co2 levels.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264

I don't even think Mr. Physics is gonna argue this one.

Feb 26, 2015 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Jay Cadbury, phd


I don't even think Mr. Physics is gonna argue this one.

You're kind of right; I'm certainly not going to waste any more of my time. Given that you seem so fixated on titles and degrees, you could maybe have had the decency to use Dr Physics.

Feb 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

The fear and loathing inspired in The Faithful by Salby is impressive.

Without doubt it is due to his being a scientist of stature in the field with an undeniable record over decades who cannot be dismissed as some kind of crackpot.

Feb 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

4:58. For a while, I was associated with a well known research lab where:

- Possession of a PhD degree was necessary to be appointed as a member of the technical staff.
- Every member of the technical staff was addressed as "Mister".

Feb 26, 2015 at 6:53 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin,


The fear and loathing inspired in The Faithful by Salby is impressive.

The point about Salby is that anyone who thinks his work may have some kind of value is clearly someone who understands this topic so badly that any dialogue is a complete and utter waste of time - as illustrated by this very thread.


- Possession of a PhD degree was necessary to be appointed as a member of the technical staff.
- Every member of the technical staff was addressed as "Mister".

You may have missed the point of my comment. I personally don't care, and I've worked with many technical staff for whom I have the utmost respect. However, if someone addressing me is going to make a big deal of having a PhD and giving themselves the title Dr, they could have the decency to do the same to anyone else who happens to have a PhD. It's what one might call consistency.

Feb 26, 2015 at 8:09 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Anders, you should be glad you did not decide to be a lawyer. Most of your clients would lose their cases in the face of your constant vacillation.

Feb 26, 2015 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

@ Dr JC (of undisclosed PhD-dum)

please read WaM comment again. He/She goes back barely 1mm years. You have to dig back 100's of millions of years. Irrelevant. Obfuscation and sleight of hand. Maybe though I should be charitable and take it that you are blissfully unaware of this. Bless.

Still can't quite get over you "CO2 leaking into space" theories. Don't know whether to laugh or cry.....however one thing I am aware of and that in all my time on and off this site is probably one of the dullest comments I have come across. Utterly embarrassing. I like "and then there's physics" (I do wish your name was faster to type but glad to have you on board!) shall probably not debate you at all.

Dr in something I'm prepared to grant you but not I hazard a guess a science....

Feb 26, 2015 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterOnbyaccident

diogenes, there's nobody called Anders here - try 'Kenny' :

http://www.populartechnology.net/2015/01/who-is-and-then-theres-physics.html

Feb 27, 2015 at 9:27 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

Why don't we listen to what the ice core records have to say? At least they are polite and to the point.
changes in levels of CO2 always precede changes in temp which does seem to support Salby?

Mar 10, 2015 at 2:59 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Sorry that I can't be in London 17th of March, but I was in London when Dr. Salby spoke in the Parliament last year.

My comment parallels that of many others, including Fred Singer: it is a very bad argument for skeptics to insist that the increase of CO2 over the past 160 years may be not or even is not from humans. There are far better arguments to be used: the cause of the "pause" for instance...

I had several questions for Dr. Salby last time in London, which were evaded by him and there was not much time to discuss things further. As far as I know, he never discussed these points - or any other objections - on any blog directly or indirectly.

To prove his theory that the CO2 increase is caused by temperature, he has to prove that the ice cores underestimate the real CO2 levels of the past. In several lectures, he says that the CO2 peaks of the past were underestimated with a factor 10 (even 15 in another lecture), due to a (theoretical) migration of CO2 through the ice. Let us assume that he is right.

The 300 ppmv measured in interglacial (arm) times of 100,000 years ago thus in reality were 3000 ppmv during ~10,000 years. As migration does spread the CO2 levels from high to low levels, the low levels of ~180 ppmv measured during ~90,000 years of the glacial period thus were in reality - according to Dr. Salby - about 30 ppmv lower or 150 ppmv, as the migration does spread the peaks, but doesn't change the average over large periods. 150 ppmv is already fatal for most C4 plants...

Worse, migration doesn't stop after 100,000 years, it only stops when all peaks are flat. That means that the first peak was 10 times higher, the second peak, 200,000 years back in time was 100 times higher and the peak of 800,000 years ago was 10^8 times higher if Dr. Salby was right. That is more CO2 than there is carbon in the earth... Besides that, the spread of CO2 in glacial times would give negative CO2 values, effectively killing near all life on earth.

Simply said, Dr. Salby can't be right on this, and as other have discussed, his theory about temperature as driver of the recent CO2 levels is completely wrong. The historical ratio between temperature and CO2 levels was 8 ppmv/°C not as Dr. Salby alludes x ppmv/°C/year... That is simply impossible, as any increase of CO2 above the temperature driven equilibrium will push more CO2 into the (deep) oceans (and plants).

Henry's law for seawater gives 4-17 ppmv/°C for an equilibrium between water and atmosphere. The historical 8 ppmv/°C is in the middle of that range...

Mar 14, 2015 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterFerdinand Engelbeen

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>