CO2

[Scpg02.]

I'm starting this thread for the archiving and discussion of CO2 information. I've asked for information before on the history of CO2 at CS and received answers but they are now lost in my email. Heaven help me trying to retrieve them. Thanks to all who participate in this thread!

I've often heard that CO2 is at planetary historic lows despite the recent increase. I mentioned this in an online discussion with someone who buys into GW if not sold on AGW. He is of the mind that would should reduce our carbon foot print anyway and does not believe the information I have currently provided. Help in this area would be appreciated.

[JohnWho]

I'm somewhat fond of this graph:





It is from "geocraft.com" - this article: Plant Fossils of West Virginia - Climate and the Carboniferous Period.

[Sunsettommy]

Go look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phaner...ioxide.png

[JohnWho]

Oooo -

He linked to Wikipedia!

I'm gonna tell!


Seriously, that's a good graph too.  How does one know when to believe Wikipedia on matters pertaining to GW/CC?

[Derek]

Ernst-Georg Beck's home page.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=JohnWho link=topic=42.msg201#msg201 date=1247352640]
Oooo -

He linked to Wikipedia!

I'm gonna tell!


Seriously, that's a good graph too.  How does one know when to believe Wikipedia on matters pertaining to GW/CC?
[/quote]

I normally avoid using Wiki on climate matters,but this one even if distorted by the warmist W.C. ,hurts the AGW propaganda very much.

[JohnWho]

That makes sense, and yes, it does.

[Sunsettommy]

The main problem I have with the idea that CO2 is strong driver of warming trends,is the scarcity of the gas and the narrow range of IR absorption,makes it at best a minimal player in absorbing OUTGOING IR photons.Approximately 95% of the Outgoing IR is never absorbed by CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere.

Since they are OUTGOING the IR photons can not add any more warmth to the atmosphere than it already could when it was originally VISIBLE light,that struck the earths surface.Visible light is a higher energy level that leaves part of the energy with the earths surface,that is then converted into IR when it is outward bound.Since the vast majority of the outgoing IR energy is absorbed by water vapor via convection,there is not a whole lot of IR left to be absorbed by the scarce CO2 molecules.

The more we learn about Water vapor,clouds and atmosphere circulation patterns,the more insignificant CO2 becomes,since there are various ways for heat to be transported upward that needs to be given more attention.Water Vapor via the CONVECTION process is the dominant mechanism in removing and transporting heat from the surface into the upper atmosphere.Hurricanes and Thunderstorms are major players in the removal and transporting of heat from the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere.

Here is a link written by Tom Kondis,who make a good presentation concerning the insignificance of CO2 as a IR absorber:

Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies

An excerpt:

Quote:Advocates misuse the term "absorption" of photons by substances as being analogous to water sopped up by a sponge, unchanged, implying physical entrapment. Actually, it means that the photon smoothly transfers its radiant energy to kinetic form. Absorption is an energy transition, not a trap; photons don't occupy molecular cages. Similarly, emission is the reverse kinetic to radiant transfer

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis...house.html

The photons go in and out of CO2 molecules in sub second speed.No new energy was created and that most of it still goes outward due to its directional speed.Since the surface of the earth represents less than 25% of the targeted direction of IR photons leaving the CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere,it is dominantly in an outward bound direction.

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=JohnWho link=topic=42.msg179#msg179 date=1247347883]
I'm somewhat fond of this graph:





It is from "geocraft.com" - this article: Plant Fossils of West Virginia - Climate and the Carboniferous Period.
[/quote]

The chart are based on two published science papers,that I do not think has been shown to be wrong since their published date.However the range of error is still significant due to the present inability to reduce the range of data scale.With more research producing a shorter data interval range,this chart will probably be radically changed to reflect a more accurate presentation.I believe after a while we will see a closer pattern between CO2 and temperature changes.

[Mike Davis]

Warmer teperature allows Increased biological activity which increases CO2 concentration in the biosphere. Cooler temperature restricts biological activity and absorbes more CO2 or if you will traps the CO2 eventaully. This process is evident in historical records before they are adjusted to fit the alarmists theory.

[Derek]

I have been looking for a while for a reconstruction of CO2 levels over the last 50,000 years.
What is the best one anyone knows of here. ?

I'm wondering is there any reconstruction that shows a "low" of 331ppm for CO2 (ie Jarowoksi),
or do they all have the "consensus" view of a low of 275ppm. ?

The reason is I want to re-write the Is Greenland Melting piece and
want to include CO2 level over the timescale if at all possible.

[Sunsettommy]

Here is the comment and the source of the chart.From Watts Up With That?:

Quote: Bill Illis (18:20:27) :

I have charted the temp vs CO2 data over this period and there is really a poor correlation between the two. This chart also shows the important continental drift timelines which are fundamental to understanding this climate period.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2464/tempvsco267m.png

[I added the new CO2 data at 1700 ppm during the short PETM 55 million years ago (there are other CO2 estimates which are lower and some people prefer to talk about the Eocene Thermal Maximum as lasting 5 or 6 million years rather than the short spike that this paper is about)].

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/th...te-models/
======================================
The chart make it clear that CO2 does NOT drive temperatures up.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Mike Davis:

You say:
“Warmer teperature allows Increased biological activity which increases CO2 concentration in the biosphere. Cooler temperature restricts biological activity and absorbes more CO2 or if you will traps the CO2 eventaully. This process is evident in historical records before they are adjusted to fit the alarmists theory.”

I agree, but it is also much more complicated than that.

In one of our 2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, 'The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle' E&E v16no2 (2005) )
we wrote:

2. Mechanisms of the carbon cycle

The IPCC reports provide simplified descriptions of the carbon cycle.  We considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be: 

Short-term processes

1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land.  CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates.  Oxygen is liberated.  This process takes place mostly in spring and summer.  A rough distinction can be made: 
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year). 
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades). 

2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated.  Again distinctions can be made: 
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer. 
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year. 

3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters.  Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis. 

4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters.  Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris. 

5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.

Longer-term process

6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal). 

7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated. 

8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells. 

Natural processes that add CO2 to the system:

9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage). 

10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires. 

Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system:

11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”). 

12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns). 

Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.

At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease.  Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons. 

The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.

The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration.  At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1).  But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.

Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances.  We assess the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”: 
I.  The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity. 

Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations.  However, some things can be stated from the empirical data.

At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year (see Figure 1).  The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months (see Figure 2).  This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2.  A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2.  But the above data indicates this is not possible. 

The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year).  However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated (1,2,3).  There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere.  The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin.  So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.

The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2.  However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature.  So, our paper (4) considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for  some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940 (there was an estimated average rise of 0.5 °C in average surface temperature:  see Figure 3). 

As temperature rises the rate of the main CO2 production processes 2 (decomposition of organic matter) and 4 (desorption from the oceans) would rise, as would the rate of the consumption process 1 (photosynthesis).  However, the rate of absorption in the ocean (process 3) will not be increased.  The rates of processes 1a and 2a will rise more quickly than the rates of processes 1b and 2b, but it is not obvious which would rise most.  Obviously, the net result would be an increase of CO2 production by desorption from the oceans.  This is a relatively slow process, because the mass transfer coefficient between the sea water and its surface is relatively low (the rates of both absorption and desorption in the oceans have time constants that are probably of the order of decades).  This would mean that a disruption by a temperature rise would result in a relatively slow increase of CO2 production.  Gradually, the consumption processes 1 (photosynthesis) and 3 (absorption in cold ocean waters) will increase and slow down the excess CO2 formation. 

As long as the anthropogenic production of CO2 is less than, say, 10% of the average natural production (2.5 times the present level), the CO2 level in the atmosphere might become 2.5 times higher than it was originally.  However, it will eventually become much lower again, due to the delayed action of process 8 (the “true sink”).

The above considerations of available data strongly suggest that the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will have no significant long term effect on climate.  The main reason is that the rate of increase of the anthropogenic production of CO2 is very much smaller that the observed maximum rate of increase of the natural consumption of CO2.

In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it.  The main cause may be desorption from the oceans.  The observed time lag of half a century is not surprising.  Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle

I hope the above extract helps and that my inability to post pictures here does not inhibit understanding.

Richard

[Mike Davis]

Richard:
I appreceat your reply. Your demonstrate what science is all about. I on the otherhand being a retired analyst leave the minute details to the researchers to locate. I am only concerned with find problems so a basic understanding or comprehension is needed. I can visualize what you have said but tend to use fewer words. Thank you for a more complete break down of the carbon cycle.