Posted on 11/13/2010 7:55:35 AM PST by Bullpine
Novembers Scientific American features a profile of Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Judith Curry, who has committed the mortal sin of reaching out to other scientists who hypothesize that global warming isnt the disaster its been cracked up to be. I have personal experience with this, as she invited me to give a research seminar in Techs prestigious School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences in 2008. My lecture summarizing the reasons for doubting the apocalyptic synthesis of climate change was well-received by an overflow crowd.
Written by Michael Lemonick, who hails from the shrill blog Climate Central, the article isnt devoid of the usual swipes, calling her a heretic,, which is hardly at all true. Shes simply another hardworking scientist who lets the data take her wherever it must, even if that leads her to question some of our more alarmist colleagues.
But, as a make-up call for calling attention to Curry, Scientific American has run a poll of its readers on climate change. Remember that SciAm has been shilling for the climate apocalypse for years, publishing a particularly vicious series of attacks on Denmarks Bjorn Lomborgs Skeptical Environmentalist. The magazine also featured NASAs James Hansen and his outlandish claims on sea-level rise. Hansen has stated, under oath in a deposition, that a twenty foot rise is quite possible within the next 89 years; oddly, he has failed to note that in 1988 he predicted that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would go permanently under water in twenty years.
SciAm probably expected a lot of people would agree with the key statement in their poll that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an effective group of government representatives and other experts.
Hardly. As of this morning, only 16% of the 6655 respondents agreed. 84%that is not a typodescribed the IPCC as a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.
The poll also asks What should we do about climate change? 69% say nothing, we are powerless to stop it. When asked about policy options, an astonishingly low 7% support cap-and-trade, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, 2009, and cost approximately two dozen congressmen their seats.
The real killer is question What is causing climate change? For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% natural processes. (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)
And finally, How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change? 80% of the respondents said nothing.
Remember that this comes from what is hardly a random sample. Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center. This poll demonstrates that virtually everyone now acknowledges that the UN has corrupted climate science, that climate change is impossible to stop, and that futile attempts like cap-and-trade do nothing but waste money and burn political capital, things that Catos scholars have been saying for years.
If I could ever get around to replacing any of my old portable tanks that the propane supplier won't fill because they're outdated, I'd fire up the turkey frier, and give it a go with one of our wild turkeys.
That might be true if man were the only generator of CO2. Consider this alternative hypothesis.
The earth gradually warms because of a more active sun. That temperature rise affects some of the natural processes that absorb or desorb CO2. Higher water temperatures at the sea surface near the equator could well increase the rate at which CO2 is released from the sea while warmer sea temperatures at near the poles cause less CO2 to be absorbed by the ocean.
That has been proposed as a mechanism to explain why CO2 peaks in ice cores follow temperature peaks by many hundreds of years. Dissolved CO2 is transported from cold waters near the poles to equatorial waters by very slow deep water currents that take hundreds of years to go the distance.
In such a case CO2 levels are not the driver of global temperature but the result of fluctuating global temperatures, and imbalance in CO2 absorption/desorption rates would be the norm for much of the time.
There could be other mechanisms at play here that also affect CO2 absorption and desorption. Perhaps higher temperatures cause CO2 to be released by clathrate structures (hydrates) in the seafloor sediments or in similar clathrates on land in cold regions. This greater release of CO2 could greater than the sea and the flora can absorb, so the CO2 levels go up in the atmosphere.
It appears that there is a small effect on the amplitude of the annual change in CO2. The 2008 amplitude (difference between high and low of the annual CO2 levels) centered around 2008. You can see the effect if you put a ruler connecting the highest annual CO2 peaks and repeat that for the lowest CO2 minimums.
The deep water ocean currents take hundreds of years to transfer CO2 from the downwelling surfaces near the poles to the upwelling surfaces near the equator. We could be now seeing the effect of enhanced CO2 absorption during the little ice age. The amount of desorption occurring at the upwelling surfaces depends on how much CO2 is upwelling as well as the temperature.
In other words, waters that contain greater amounts of dissolved CO2 than average are now surfacing. The surface temperatures at the downwelling areas are warmer now than what they were when the present upwelling currents received their load of CO2 hundreds of years ago.
The temperatures at the downwelling and upwelling areas are probably what control the mechanism I mentioned. Since the temperature in the plot shown in your link is for global sea temperatures, I don’t know for sure what the upwelling and downwelling temperatures are.
The 2008 dip is very real but pales in comparison to the annual rise and fall of CO2. That implies that vegetation is much more important than SST over the short run. That suggests fossil fuels are too (over the short run). Your sequester/release mechanism is viable over the long run but would require extremely rich-in-CO2 upwelling areas to be a factor in the short run. I do not recall reading anything about such areas in the present oceans, but I have not read a lot in that area.
Assume for a moment, the downwelling surface water temperature is 0 degrees C and the upwelling surface water temperature is 30 degrees C. By my rough calculations of the slopes of the absorption curve, if both SSTs are heated by a degree due to solar heating, then absorption drops by about 3.7%, while desorption increases by about 2.6%. If the downwelling sea surface temperature remains relatively constant because, as you say, it is a phenomena driven by the freezing of water and increased salinity, and if the geographical area where the downwelling resulting from this phenomena stays the same, then the amount of CO2 absorbed stays about the same, while the amount desorbed at the equator increases by about 2.6% if temperature there goes up by one degree C.
Downwelling might be caused by the fact that cold water is denser than warm water. I haven't compared salinity driven downwelling to temperature driven downwelling so I'm not positive which driving force is greater.
The point is that substantial changes in the difference between the amount of absorbed and desorbed CO2 can be caused by changes in the SST. Remember too that it takes hundreds of years, perhaps over a thousand years, for CO2 absorbed at the poles to be released at the equator. If so, temperature conditions at the poles a thousand years ago may determine how much CO2 is in the upwelling currents.
An article on this can be found here Link. It is not peer reviewed, so some caution may be needed. However, I have seen some poor papers in other areas of science get published because peer review on those papers was apparently poor or perhaps submitted to reviewers favorable to one side of a scientific controversy or perhaps to reviewers who do not have access to the data to rigorously check claims.
I suspect the annual cycles in CO2 correspond with the growing season or seasonal output of CO2. The great bulk of CO2 resides in the oceans, some 93% of it. The amount of difference between oceanic absorption and desorption is not insignificant, and the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere may well be controlled by it.
I'm going to bed. zzzz
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.