THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

[sunsettommy]

Rocket Scientist’s Journal

… UNDER CONSTRUCTION …

October 24, 2006

CO2 ACQUITTAL

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Excerpt:

ABSTRACT

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/200...ittal.html#more

CO2 is an overrated "greenhouse gas".

[sunsettommy]

I see that not one CO2 Global Warming apologist on this forum wants to tackle this.

It might warm your heart to know that Gavin Schmidt of Realclimate.com made a snotty rebuttal to the posted article.

But alas a counter rebuttal has been made that exposes Gavins weak arguments.

It is all in the link.

CO2 as a greenhouse is not only irrationally demonized.It is not not even a significant warming forcing.

Ciao.

[jdobbin]

CO2 as a greenhouse is not only irrationally demonized.It is not not even a significant warming forcing.

I'm sure that if Glassman's work is as revolutionary as you say, we'll see it duplicated by others in the next weeks.

[myata]

There are also theories that our Solar system neighbour, Venus, was once not very unlike our Earth before it experienced that runaway greenhouse effect. Who is right? And can we afford to make gambles if the future of the planet can be at stake?

[sunsettommy]

CO2 as a greenhouse is not only irrationally demonized.It is not not even a significant warming forcing.

I'm sure that if Glassman's work is as revolutionary as you say, we'll see it duplicated by others in the next weeks.

LOL,

It is obvious that you did not read the link much.If any since your reply was just 18 minutes after my post.

The paper is not really that revolutionary.It is based on the existing data that has been around a while.Data that many climate researchers pointedly ignore.I have known for a while about the proven time lag for CO2 with temperature increases.

Dr.Glassman brought up examples of data being ignored in the report.Look for them.

Try taking your time reading it up will ya.It is a lot of stuff to digest.

I did not say that his work is revolutionary anyway.Why did you try to put such words I never said in my mouth?

There has been a number of other climate science papers posted in recent months showing that in some way CO2 is an overrated CO2 greenhouse gas.

Try reading Gavin Schmidts rebuttal.It is revealing at how shallow he really is as a Climate scientist.Dr. Glassman is not a climate scientist.But he reveals a better understanding of the CO2 cycle.

[sunsettommy]

There are also theories that our Solar system neighbour, Venus, was once not very unlike our Earth before it experienced that runaway greenhouse effect. Who is right? And can we afford to make gambles if the future of the planet can be at stake?

LOL,

Try reading up on the subject since CO2 is NOT the main cause of Venus being very hot.

Sunlight can barely penetrate the outer layers.The clouds are VERY reflective.

Right now Saturn,Mars,Pluto and Titan show evidence of warming.The Sun is at a 600 or 1000 year high in solar radiation.I think they are absorbing the increasing radiation.

Here on Earth increasing atmospheric CO2 levels generally has a LOGARITHMIC effect on absorbing outgoing IR wavelengths.They have only certain frequencies too.

Here from LOBOS MOTL a Phycist,

Climate sensitivity and editorial policies

Excerpt:

Climate sensitivity is defined as the average increase of the temperature of the Earth that you get (or expect) by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 0.028% in the pre-industrial era to the future value of 0.056% (expected around 2100).

Recall that the contribution of carbon dioxide to the warming is expected because of the "greenhouse" effect and the main question is how large it is. The greenhouse effect is nothing else than the absorption (of mostly infrared radiation emitted by the Earth) by the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, mainly water vapor - but in this case we are focusing on carbon dioxide, one of the five most important gases causing this effect after water vapor.

Snip:

You should realize that the carbon dioxide only absorbs the infrared radiation at certain frequencies, and it can only absorb the maximum of 100% of the radiation at these frequencies. By this comment, I want to point out that the "forcing" - the expected additive shift of the terrestrial equilibrium temperature - is not a linear function of the carbon dioxide concentration. Instead, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration increases: the expected temperature increase for a single frequency is something like

1.5 ( 1 - exp[-(concentration-280)/200 ppm] ) Celsius

The decreasing exponential tells you how much radiation at the critical frequencies is able to penetrate through the carbon dioxide and leave the planet. The numbers in the formula above are not completely accurate and the precise exponential form is not quite robust either but the qualitative message is reliable. When the concentration increases, additional CO2 becomes less and less important.

In particular, there exists nothing such as a "runaway effect" or a "point of no return" or a "tipping point" or any of the similar frightening fairy-tales promoted by Al Gore and his numerous soulmates. The formula above simply does not allow you more than 1.5 Celsius degrees of warming from the CO2 greenhouse effect. Similar formulae based on the Arrhenius' law predicts a decrease of the derivative "d Temperature / d Concentration" to be just a power law - not exponential decrease - but it is still a decrease.

More here,

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-...-editorial.html

[jdobbin]

LOL,

It is obvious that you did not read the link much.If any since your reply was just 18 minutes after my post.

The paper is not really that revolutionary.It is based on the existing data that has been around a while.Data that many climate researchers pointedly ignore.I have known for a while about the proven time lag for CO2 with temperature increases.

Dr.Glassman brought up examples of data being ignored in the report.Look for them.

Try taking your time reading it up will ya.It is a lot of stuff to digest.

I did not say that his work is revolutionary anyway.Why did you try to put such words I never said in my mouth?

There has been a number of other climate science papers posted in recent months showing that in some way CO2 is an overrated CO2 greenhouse gas.

Try reading Gavin Schmidts rebuttal.It is revealing at how shallow he really is as a Climate scientist.Dr. Glassman is not a climate scientist.But he reveals a better understanding of the CO2 cycle.

I read this all a few days ago. I looked at the Real Climate page a while back looking for other material. I followed the link back to Glassman's work and read it.

If Glassman's observations have merit, they will be further researched.

Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I am not dismissing Glassman's work. Just waiting to hear additional confirmation of the material from several sources.

Given how many people are researching global warming whether to debunk it or or to confirm it, I suspect we'll see a lot of ideas tossed into the mix.

[sunsettommy]

LOL,

It is obvious that you did not read the link much.If any since your reply was just 18 minutes after my post.

The paper is not really that revolutionary.It is based on the existing data that has been around a while.Data that many climate researchers pointedly ignore.I have known for a while about the proven time lag for CO2 with temperature increases.

Dr.Glassman brought up examples of data being ignored in the report.Look for them.

Try taking your time reading it up will ya.It is a lot of stuff to digest.

I did not say that his work is revolutionary anyway.Why did you try to put such words I never said in my mouth?

There has been a number of other climate science papers posted in recent months showing that in some way CO2 is an overrated CO2 greenhouse gas.

Try reading Gavin Schmidts rebuttal.It is revealing at how shallow he really is as a Climate scientist.Dr. Glassman is not a climate scientist.But he reveals a better understanding of the CO2 cycle.

I read this all a few days ago. I looked at the Real Climate page a while back looking for other material. I followed the link back to Glassman's work and read it.

If Glassman's observations have merit, they will be further researched.

Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I am not dismissing Glassman's work. Just waiting to hear additional confirmation of the material from several sources.

Given how many people are researching global warming whether to debunk it or or to confirm it, I suspect we'll see a lot of ideas tossed into the mix.

That is fine.

[geoffrey]

There are also theories that our Solar system neighbour, Venus, was once not very unlike our Earth before it experienced that runaway greenhouse effect. Who is right? And can we afford to make gambles if the future of the planet can be at stake?

I'm sure man-made emissions weren't the cause there my friend.

[myata]

There are also theories that our Solar system neighbour, Venus, was once not very unlike our Earth before it experienced that runaway greenhouse effect. Who is right? And can we afford to make gambles if the future of the planet can be at stake?

I'm sure man-made emissions weren't the cause there my friend.

And how can you be so sure? Do you have first hand information?

The result can be the same though, at least according to some scientists (I read it, I believe, on the BBC Science & Nature site). Can we afford at this point in time to take bets with the side that suits our preferences and keep fingers crossed for the better?

[shoggoth]

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

The physics they mention is already known. But claiming that it shows raising co2 levels cannot raise global temperatures is just ridiculous. Not only would that be physically impossible, but their counter-argument doesn't even make any sense. Their claim quoted above is totally off the mark. They are saying that co2 cannot cause warming if co2 rises because of warming, otherwise the positive feedback would lead to catastrophic warming, and it didn't.

But not all positive feedbacks lead to runaway events as they are claiming here.

If a rise of 1C temperature causes a 50% rise in co2, and a 50% rise in co2 causes a 0.5C temperature rise (example numbers), then do the math. There will be no runaway warming, but the co2 will amplify any temperature increase. Raising co2 independantly of temperature (as has been done over the last century) will equally cause a warming.

1) Initial conditions: 20C 100ppm

2) Raise temperature 1C indepedently of co2: 21C

3) 1C increase in temperature causes co2 levels to increase by 50%: 150ppm

4) 50% increase in co2 causes additional 0.5C warming: 21.5C

5) additional 0.5C warming causes co2 levels to increase by 25%: 187.5ppm

6) 25% increase in co2 causes additional 0.25C warming: 21.75C

7) additional 0.25C warming causes co2 levels to increase by 12.5%: 200ppm

8) 12.5% increase in co2 causes additional 0.125C warming: ~21.88C

etc 21.9375

Overall temperature has risen 2C. 1C of that rise was due to some independant factor. But the other 1C was due to amplification effect of the added co2. There was no catastrophic runaway warming as the authors of this article imply must occur.

[JerrySeinfeld]

There are also theories that our Solar system neighbour, Venus, was once not very unlike our Earth before it experienced that runaway greenhouse effect. Who is right? And can we afford to make gambles if the future of the planet can be at stake?

I'm sure man-made emissions weren't the cause there my friend.

And how can you be so sure? Do you have first hand information?

The result can be the same though, at least according to some scientists (I read it, I believe, on the BBC Science & Nature site). Can we afford at this point in time to take bets with the side that suits our preferences and keep fingers crossed for the better?

More to the point: Are we not taking a huge gamble with our economy by trying to rectify a "problem" which may not even exist?

[Drea]

"Economy" doesn't mean much without an "earth".

Could be this is the third or fourth planet humankind has been on and ruined... well you never know!

It is not outlandish to think that we are from Venus (eons ago) -- certainly not any more outlandish than thinking we were created and are being judged by some "master in the sky".

[shoggoth]

It is not outlandish to think that we are from Venus (eons ago) -- certainly not any more outlandish than thinking we were created and are being judged by some "master in the sky".

I would love to see what kind of stuff you consider outlandish

[Wilber]

"Economy" doesn't mean much without an "earth".

Could be this is the third or fourth planet humankind has been on and ruined... well you never know!

It is not outlandish to think that we are from Venus (eons ago) -- certainly not any more outlandish than thinking we were created and are being judged by some "master in the sky".

It's pretty outlandish. The fact that Venus is about 40 million killometers closer to the sun is probably a much better explanation. My guess is that would have a much greater effect on the earths temperature than anything we humans could spew into the atmosphere.