What Part of Hot Air Rises Do You Not Understand
Dr Roy is having a mid life crisis. He writes:
"But what if (I’m NOT necessarily advocating this) most of the CO2 humans produce, which is near the land surface, is absorbed by vegetation, and the observed global increase is partly or mostly due to outgassing of the oceans?"
Most of the CO2 humans produce is created by combustion of fossil fuels.
What part of hot air rises doesn't Dr. Roy understand?
There are more sophisticated answers to this from a whole bunch of atmospheric transport studies
Posts
87 comments:
What's really dumb in his navel-gazing exercise is this addendum:
"Update #2:Just to clarify…even if all of the atmospheric CO2 increase is manmade, I continue to believe it is more beneficial than harmful."
There you have it. The good will outweigh the bad, because ... reasons.
-WheelsOC
So ocean acidification could be caused by outgassing of CO2, instead of increased CO2 in solution? Who knew?
I may have to add another loop to the semiotic carbn cycle
Roy just checked out of the game a long time ago, didn't he...
god will provide in his divine beneficence.
Hot air rises got nothing to do with it. Seuss effect in delta 13C says the extra CO2 in the atmosphere was directly from burning old organic carbon, not outgassing mineral carbon from the oceans.
RTFQ
""But what if (I’m NOT necessarily advocating this) most of the CO2 humans produce, which is near the land surface, "
Most of the CO2 humans produce near the land surface rises, because it is hot air. As it rises it mixes. It does not stay "near the surface" but rises well above.
Other than that the Suess effect is another indicator that yes, Roy is engaged in world class motivated shark jumping.
Obviously all the ocean outgassed CO2 makes it above the boundary layer, but that anthro carbon...that's a different story...
Chris, on net oceans are sinks. The exchange in the marine boundary layer is rapid (e.g. what goes up most often comes down and versa vica) but obviously some gets into the free troposphere.
Combustion products are by definition hot and buoyant which means on average they will rise higher and faster than CO2 emitted as from the oceans or plants.
Well it matters not that extra CO2 causes warming as we humans are clever and can adapt to any changes, well that is what Roy's pal John says, so there:
-quote-
John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, is in the tiny minority of scientists who are skeptical of mainstream science's claim that global warming is a major problem. He says people will do OK: "Humans are clever. We shall adapt to whatever happens."
- notquote
source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/un-panel-global-warming-_n_5717139.html
H/T Climate Progress in article:
Climate Scientists Spell Out Stark Danger And Immorality Of Inaction In New Leaked Report
If Dr. Spencer had read AR4, TAR and probably before than that, he would probably be aware of the line of evidence due to the C13/C12 isotopic ratio. I mean... it is not a matter that is currently at the border of the leading environmental chemists, it is quite a standard result. And it makes crystal clear that it is NOT outgassing. Istopic ratio, as simple as that. Surprising that Dr. Spencer doesn't realize about that.
anonymousJS
-quote-
John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, is in the tiny minority of scientists who are skeptical of mainstream science's claim that global warming is a major problem. He says people will do OK: "Humans are clever. We shall adapt to whatever happens."
- notquote
Many of us will die, many others will not enjoy it
Christy has ~20 years before he kicks the bucket. Odds are good that things will be fine for him personally, and probably fair that when he goes to meet his decomposing microorganisms he'll still be able to pretend that things won't be so bad overall. Alternatively and maybe even better for his finely tuned sense of righteousness, he'll be able to imagine it's the Book of Revelations kicking in, textual interpretation of scripture being flexible to meet the needs of the times. Heads he wins, tails we lose, right?
The CO2 isotopic fraction stuff predates IPCC considerably, right? I'm thinking it will have been in one or more of Woy's textbooks.
Steve
I'm thinking it will have been in one or more of Woy's textbooks.
IIRC, Woy trained as a meteorolgist.
Yup. Another one.
Many of us will die, many others will not enjoy it
Indeed, adaptation covers a multitude of possibilities.
Many of us will die, many others will not enjoy it
because... reasons.
Reasons
I got an idea. I need to get rich, so I'm going to start an Internet campaign. The idea would be for those who love the environment to donate €1 to have me dump 10 kg of ground up carbonate rocks in the ocean. If this idea works I could be bigger than Greenpeace in 10 years!
Moving and grinding rocks costs money and energy, you would lose your shirt, but your abs would be spectacular.
Hell, the idea isn´t to be energy efficient. The idea is to get rich. This could be the 21st Century version of the Pet Rock.
The only other alternative I see is to sell a solar powered Ginzu knife.
"CO2 is a well-mixed gas"
is just a warmist myth.
The lower 10 meters of the atmosphere are pure CO2, now that's a skeptic fact.
The primary out-gassing of CO2 and other hot air is by people like Spencer.
Spencer alone seems to be the source of more hot air than all the world's fossil fuel burning plants combined.
Crushed rocks can be bought at about 200€ per ton with a 8-16 mm grain size when buying at you local DIY store. You want to offer to grind those rocks even finer, transport those crushed rocks to the sea and dump them for 100€ per ton. Now tell me how you are going to earn money with this scheme.
Bowers,
none of that sounds particularly convincing, particularly when none of it is actually observed.
The warming we've observed also corresponds to increased longevity, increased crop yield, increased global GDP, increased education, decreased infant mortality, and just about every other measure of the human condition improved - except for hysterical pre-occupation with imagined disasters.
imagined disasters
AKA : quantified excess energy via quantified change in atmospheric composition and ocean chemistry.
some anymouse and I guess the same one in both:
-quote-
none of that sounds particularly convincing, particularly when none of it is actually observed.
-notquote-
-quote-
The warming we've observed also corresponds to increased longevity, increased crop yield, increased global GDP, increased education, decreased infant mortality, and just about every other measure of the human condition improved - except for hysterical pre-occupation with imagined disasters.
-notquote-
Of course you can provided CREDIBLE sources to back up those statements.
Otherwise can be ignored.
Increased Ebola
> none of it is actually observed.
The future ain't what it was anymore.
"The warming we've observed also corresponds to increased longevity ..."
People in hot regions live longer than people in temperate regions?
Same old 'sceptical' nonsense. Conditions now can't be used as an argument that future conditions under increased forcing from GHGs will be benign.
Spencer has prepended his post with a bolded NOTE:
"NOTE: The following post has led to many good comments. The best argument advanced that I am wrong is from a ~1,000 year record of CO2 from the Law Dome ice core (a record I was unaware of) which suggests the recent CO2 increase is almost entirely anthropogenic in origin.
While not actually admitting he was wrong, he's goes most of the way there. I am surprised he was not aware of Law Dome. Seriously? And he writes books on climate change?
Kevin,
Let's stipulate that he wasn't aware of Law Dome. This should give people who promote the views of scientists who are not expert in a particular area (in this case the carbon cycle) who pontificate in such areas. Ooops, Roy says -- sorry, I was ignorant.
What if I told you the Vostok ice core record can record CO2 changes on 50-year time scales, which maybe it can’t?
http://imgur.com/UCDh1MM
I remember the heyday of this site. "Eli Rabbett" was giving extremely detailed, months-long replies to denier points and questions. Now, all these years later, an actual scientist roughly in the field is literally not even rising to the level of some of the denialist blog-commenters, again, on this very blog.
This reminds me of Lubos Motl and the adiabatic rate or Tim Ball not understanding Archimedes Principle. In the end their political histrionics even trump their credibility and reputation.
But I thought we'd made enough progress that a Roy Spencer would be deeply ashamed to BS at such a low level. I wonder what, besides a change in the temperature and the percentage of dissolved CO2, causes persistent "outgassing" "from the seas" in his world?
"increased crop yield"
Yield is only part of the picture. Quality is as important, and calorific content is dropping. But then our staple crops rely on a growing temperature of 30C +/-5C before their stomata close inhibiting photosynthesis, and their enzymes denature. You're mindset is a bit like the village drunk on his eighth whisky asking for the bottle because he feels great so far.
Anonytroll,
Woy's arguments are so transparently absurd that their refutation does not require anything bomb proof. Why swat a mosquito with a nuke.
an actual scientist roughly in the field is literally not even rising to the level of some of the denialist blog-commenters
Our level of scientific understanding and confidence has risen to the level over the years to the point where the denialists have been reduced to illucid cranks and yet you insist that we debunk their idiotic expressions if ignorance and denial ad nauseaum. Can you explain to us why we should waste our time and not treat this debacle as comedy? The warnings civilization and their denialist profiteers have been given over and over again could not be anything less than crystal clear.
From heyday to rayday
You're not here to get explanations for your crank theories and ignorant ideas, you are here to troll for your paymasters.
Proofs are nukes, links are doves.
bluegrue said...
"Crushed rocks can be bought at about 200€ per ton with a 8-16 mm grain size when buying at you local DIY store. You want to offer to grind those rocks even finer, transport those crushed rocks to the sea and dump them for 100€ per ton. Now tell me how you are going to earn money with this scheme."
Simple. I'll travel to Ellesmere Island, set an Isis flag on a carbonate rock cliff, send an anonymous email to the USA Air Force. This will lead to massive bombing of said rock cliff by USAF b52s. Those guys like to bomb until the rubble bounces. Then the rubble will just slide into the ocean. My projected first year net profit is 1.7 million euros.
But if it doesn't work I'm sure I can get a geoengineering subsidy. Those should be more popular when CO2 reaches 500 ppm.
Of course Roy's speculations are beside the point. We know pretty well how much CO2 humans produce and how much is accumulating in the atmosphere, so the details of which natural source/sinks are unbalanced are essentially irrelevant. Either way, about half the CO2 we put out stays in the atmosphere.
(Not that those details are scientifically uninteresting - just irrelevant to the question of whether human activities are increasing atmospheric CO2.)
CIP
"While not actually admitting he was wrong, he's goes most of the way there. I am surprised he was not aware of Law Dome. Seriously? And he writes books on climate change?"
Roy has waved off high climate sensitivity suggested by ice age phases on the basis that the ice core record is too uncertain. That blind spot has pedigree.
barrymoose.
Beware of the man with just one book.
Just after the only Edition upon whose authority Roy relies, another Jacobean author wrote of the consequences of hot air rising thus :
Here's an example for extortion:
what moisture is drawn out of the sea, when foul weather comes, pours down and runs into the sea again ---
John Webster The Dutchess of Malfi 1612
WheelsOC, if you think there are too many stock arguments, try this article from pravda. Not that it is good but it is different (to put it mildly):
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/01-09-2014/128413-global_warming_science-0/#
in case you didn't see my comment at Stoat.
this is the current level of debate on the issue
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/deniers-2
Sharknadoes are real.
Get used to it.
Stay tned for Prof. Oreskes magistrial denunciation of nuclear sharknado deniers.
The error in Roy's previous regression analysis was explained here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roys_risky_regression.html
The new analysis has the same flaw, but it is compounded by another error in applying the coefficients for the regression on de-trended data to the original data. The reason that is not a valid thing to do ought to be obvious.
Poor Russell tries to get a dig in anywhere and everywhere he can against Oreskes (even on threads like this one that have nothing to do with her)
Cry us a river.
PS: the word is "magistral", not 'magistrial'
Would have thought a Harvard don would know that. And please don't suggest it was a "typo".
Anent sharknados, one Sunday afternoon in 1979 in Ft. Myers, we were waiting out a torrential downpour under the protection of a service station awning. The head of a large fish was just emerging from a downspout nearby. The fish -- a mullet, I think -- must have been scooped up from the ocean in an updraft and hauled several miles inland. (Ft. Myers is not on the ocean.) And by large, I mean 15" or so and the downspout was an old fashioned ceramic one. A pipe, really. Several inches in diameter. I would have loved to have heard the fish come down and hit the roof.
I suppose it could have come from the nearby Caloosahatchee River. If mullet is a fresh water fish.
Anon writes: PS: the word is "magistral", not 'magistrial'
Hmmm .... I suspect it was a typo and was meant to be 'magisterial'.
oh, if we only had made all the roads white! and kept all the smokestacks very short! and increased vegetation by 50%! oh oh oh! maybe even not clear the forests for fields!! if we then had even used only solar energy to create our civ!!
Anyone thinking i'm bagging on the blog in its current form, I beg to differ on Rabbett Run. First, lots of climate blogs are on hiatus, Eli chose to involve other people which is one of the few paths to persistence. It's what was tried at Greeenfyre and a pity it didn't work. Moreover, my point was simply that there's no longer a need for detailed refutation, enough is out there, and in fact, I still link to both the explicit posts about saturation and the discussion in the comments about the altitude of heat escaping, etc. The main heyday I had in mind was actually for the deniers/delayers. Even though science has marched on, if anything, THEY'VE regressed.
Put another way, even a one-liner can now refute a Roy Spencer. He's heading for anthony watts territory, and fast.
Professor Rabbett my respect for your work on the internets is undiminished. :)
Also, Steve Bloom was the hero of the Brave Nuke (Shills Who Were Climate Denialists Two Days Ago, Reduction Delayers Till Ten Minutes Ago And Now Want To Hold Us Hostage to Boost Their Boondoggles or They'll Go Back To Thwarting Efforts to Stabilize the) Climate thread, IMO.
I was just gloating because I was pleased at BNC's overreach.
Magistral is a word, and an appropriate one - albeit archaic - though we suspect Russell actually meant 'magisterial'...
Archaic and French, what's not to like?
For those who think Russell meant "magisterial"
You obviously don't know anything about Russell's animosity for Oreskes and have therefore not considered the context.
One definition of magistral makes much more sense than "magisterial" given the context: "concocted or prescribed by a physician to meet the needs of a particular case"
Russell's beef with Oreskes was that (he claims) she was concocting a story about himself and his cousin (Fred Seitz).
Not incidentally, in case you may not have noticed, Russell has a tendency to use "archaic" words (probably to make himself appear intelligent)
Anonymous ignoramus wrong;
Kevin right.
And I'm not a don, I'm just a regular Fellow.
Eli thought you came from the North End toh.
Oreskes right
Russell wrong: Don Wrong
Actually, Chris Mooney got Russell wrong and Oreskes probably missed his interestingly nuanced understanding of scientific reality as well. It illustrates my point just made on RealClimate, that namecalling even if accurate is alienating. Unfortunately, there are relatively few rational conservatives still sticking their necks out in favor of the realities of our predicament, so I'd give it a rest and appreciate his interesting approach and delightfully nasty graphics. Though no doubt he prefers your snark to my support.
The Freds (Seitz and Singer) were quite another story, but we all have extended families and muddle along. Too bad the muddle is taking over, and muddleheadedness is threatening our collective survival, as we dabble in property rights (social construct) over all (nature's inevitable reaction to being poked).
Does this mean Daedalus has accepted Anonymous' magisterial overview of the optical depth and residence time of stratospheric shark clouds ?
Susan,
What do you consider "ignoramus" if not name calling?
At least I made an attempt at humor with "Don Wrong" :)
Russell has been using this site for some time now to effectively badmouth Oreskes (and also Carl Sagan)
Perhaps he should say such things to her face (Sagan is now dead so can't even defend himself) instead of doing it through snide remarks in blog comments that he knows she will probably never read.
Some people just end up on the wrong side of a scientific controversy. History will tell, but it will not be historians making the controversies or the judgements. The climate science controversy has already been decided and judged, so lets talk about those Younger Dryas era sedimentary nanodiamonds! The thing about nanodiamonds is that even though they are very expensive to produce, extract and examine, everybody loves them! Nanodiamonds are the vogue. Soon they will be boring, and historians can argue about who was on what side of the controversy.
I have and I did.
When do we get to see you face to face ?
yet you still bad mouth her behind her back.
Why is that?
You couldn't handle her arguments in a face to face situation?
Pathetic.
Rabett Run's available for anyone with an internet connection to read. Russell's very open and public about his opinion of Dr. Oreskes.
Well, I'm ambivalent. Chris Mooney and Naomi Oreskes are heroes of mine, but so is Russell. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and believe six impossible things before breakfast.
So, hatred never got anyone anywhere, and there's too much of it about. This applies to all of us, not just some.
Russell, you have been deceived, I think there's a connection between property rights, nature, and Daedalus and Sharknado but I seem to have misled you about my knowledge base, No need to spell it out, just sayin'
Factoids happen, and the PR for Nuclear Winter entailed some fairly hilarious shark jumping and stonewalling--
Naomi's selective quotation evidences deep denial as to the mere history of the matter.
Unselective quotation is best to get to the mere history of any matter.
Science is messy, Russel, it takes a lot of hypotheses, theories, experiments and head bashing before anything even approaches the level of 'factoid', whatever that is.
As far as I can tell, you have not yet offered a single hypothesis to the masses for them to destroy.
Keep trying. You'll get there.
Science also entails a lot of reading . You might start with the references to Steve Schneider's 1988 Climatic Change editorial "
June 1988, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 215-219
Or what I wrote about the subject in Science, Nature, Naturwissenschaften and Foreign Affairs before I published a word on the subject in the popular press- Oreskes Conway simply ignore the primary literature, and quote mine an op-ed condensation of a policy quarterly article instead.
Given the rise of framing as an intellectual cottage industry, It is hardly surprising they should avoid the money quote from the 1986 artilce in question :
"Science is not generally thought to be about semiotics, which deals with the creation and manipulation of symbols,"
Lavoisier had Russell's number before there was a Russell. Antoine Lavoisier expressed the need for a systematic chemical nomenclature in the Preface to his Elements of Chemistry
---------------------
"The impossibility of separating the nomenclature of a science from the science itself, is owing to this, that every branch of physical science must consist of three things; the series of facts which are the objects of the science, the ideas which represent these facts, and the words by which these ideas are expressed. Like three impressions of the same seal, the word ought to produce the idea, and the idea to be a picture of the fact. And, as ideas are preserved and communicated by means of words, it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any science without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science, without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it. However certain the facts of any science may be, and, however just the ideas we may have formed of these facts, we can only communicate false impressions to others, while we want words by which these may be properly expressed
Susan,
Who said anything about "hatred" for Russell?
You got that out of my "cry us a river" and "pathetic" comments?
or maybe it was "Don Wrong"? (some real hatred there)
Russell is obviously the one with all the pent-up (seething?) hatred for Oreskes and Sagan.
Why else would he still be obsessing about something that happened a half century ago and bringing it up, over and over at every opportunity?
He should just get over it (and himself).
That's great Russell, I wrote a highly mathematical paper when I was an undergraduate too, entitled 'The Geometry of Information'. It helped me a lot through the years, but it did not contain any hypotheses amenable to falsification, it contained only theorems amenable to construction and proof. You need to get out there and formulate a hypothesis based upon evidence, and failing that, speculate wildly. Pick a subject, any subject, and if you can't think of one I know of a dozen or so that would be suitable for a PhD. Just take a look at the Arxiv, Vinokur just built a magnetic vortex quantum simulator that already has demonstrated the fractional quantum hall effect and the magnetic equivalent of quantum liquid gas phase transition, and I just noticed some other guys demonstrated high energy bosonic coupling in the pnictides, not phononic and not magnetic. Get out there, man, there is this energy imbalance problem that seems intractable, but actually, just begs for innovation and breakthroughs.
Philosophy and consensus polls just do not cut it anymore. It's in the past, get over it.
Why else would he still be obsessing about something that happened a half century ago and bringing it up, over and over at every opportunity?
Ummm ... the same reason you bring up something that happened a couple of years ago or a couple of weeks ago, that does not do anything to solve any problems or advance the state of the art?
Pot, kettle ... you know the rest.
Thomas,
Russell is the one who keeps bringing up Oreskes, not I.
And I suppose your rants about what happened in 1964 at the Gulf of Tonkin somehow "advances the state of the art"?
LOL.
Russell is the one who keeps bringing up Oreskes, not I.
And you keep bringing up Russell, and I keep bringing up you, which appears to be your intent, to obfuscate, delay and deny.
Show me your relevant hypothesis. Or perhaps you have no problems.
And I suppose your rants about what happened in 1964 at the Gulf of Tonkin somehow "advances the state of the art"?
LOL
Since the Gulf of Tonkin was repeated with the WMDs in Iraq, I guess not. But yes, reminding you why you have an energy imbalance and why you cannot afford to innovate yourself out of that problem does indeed advance the state of the art of innovation.
I fully expect your folly to be repeated ad infinitum, much in the way that Constellation continues to diminish your ability to innovate in space.
Testosterone is so unbecoming. I just got done watching a rocket launch an advanced asian satellite, how did you spend your last half hour, o' anonymous 1?
Eli, I was referring to thr unabashed efforts of the K Street PR firm hired by Carl's political foundation backers , Porter Novelli Inc. to parlay TTAPS into a set of symbolic tools for the manipulation of public opinion.
The other money quote in my 1986 piece, which Elfritz evidently has still not read , came from the then editor of Science , Technology, and Human Values , Marcelle La Follette:
"Science is whatever Carl Sagan says on the Johnny Carson Show.."
I referred to nuclear winter having morhed from a scientific hypothesis into a popular factoid in the same sense as the "Energy crisis " morphed into "the Oil Glut' after the hype died down.
I don't read philosophical and social crap, Russell, which undoubtedly whatever it is you wrote would be, I read math, physics, chemistry and the occasional biology and paleontology.
Just last night I read a stunning piece of non-equilibrium pump probe spectroscopy on the CMR manganites. You should try it some time, you're interested in reality, right? Or not? You should should take more interest in things that are real and not imaginoed. It help you calibrate your imagination lest you become deluded.
I don't read philosophical and social crap,
Whereof we do not know, thereof we cannot help writing bloggerel
I don't speak Beowolf either,.
When you got some data, some math and a hypothesis, get back to me.
Post a Comment