Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

He should tell us which plane and which part of the plane he is working on so I, as a frequent flyer can properly apply the precautionnary principle

THE SUN AND THE OCEANs ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSERS OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
1. For thousands of years the oceans have been absorbing CO2.
2. For thousands of years CO2 has been evaporating from the oceans into the atmosphere.
3. For thousands of years CO2 has been precipitating from the atmosphere into the oceans.
4. When the sun's radiance increases its irradience into the earth's oceans, the oceans warm.
5. When the oceans warm, CO2 evaporates from the oceans at an increased rate.
6. When CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at an increased rate, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.

Hmmmm, interesting, so are you suggesting the word "contend" may have two meanings, one the opposite of the other? Interesting how folks of similar political mindsets tend to follow each other into left field, isn't it? I also find it fascinating that definitions cannot be understood in context, as given in the dictionary. If you understand the context of the 6 different meanings as you provide, hamburger, there is nothing to pick from, they all agree, and they certainly do not confirm what diest is contending. Enough said.

icann, thanks for getting back onto the subject matter.

THE SUN AND THE OCEANS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSERS OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
1. For thousands of years the oceans have been absorbing CO2.
2. For thousands of years CO2 has been evaporating from the oceans into the atmosphere.
3. For thousands of years CO2 has been precipitating from the atmosphere into the oceans.
4. When the sun's radiance increases its irradiance into the earth's oceans, the oceans warm.
5. When the oceans warm, CO2 evaporates from the oceans at an increased rate.
6. When CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at an increased rate, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. When the sun's radiance decreases its irradiance into the earth's oceans, the oceans cool.
8. When the oceans cool, CO2 condenses into the oceans at an increased rate.
9. When CO2 condenses into the oceans at an increased rate, CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at a decreased rate.
10. When CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at a decreased rate, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for IPCC: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1977 was caused by humans and what percentage was caused by the sun and earth's oceans?

Betcha, IPCC, you don't know!

normally after a statement or series of statements there is a conclusion, preceded by therefore.

Like this

Ican makes a series of nutty postulates
therefore Ican is nuts.

So you are convinced the IPCC does know the percentage of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere via human activities versus that from natural sources?

Ican's qustion seems quite reasonable and not at all nutty to me.

OK, I got it!

Steve is unable to rationally rebut any of ican's postulates.

Instead, Steve comes to the nutty conclusion that ican is nutty.

Therefore, Steve is nutty.
QED

THE BBC REPORTS
----------------------




source - MANY LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE MAY BE FOUND HERE :
BBC REPORT

Trend in global average Temperature 1880 to 2007

Solar Activity versus to CO2 activity

US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity

A 3000+ year look at Sargossa sea level temperatures up to 2006


THE SUN AND THE OCEANS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSERS OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
1. For thousands of years the oceans have been absorbing CO2.
2. For thousands of years CO2 has been evaporating from the oceans into the atmosphere.
3. For thousands of years CO2 has been precipitating from the atmosphere into the oceans.
4. When the sun's radiance increases its irradiance into the earth's oceans, the oceans warm.
5. When the oceans warm, CO2 evaporates from the oceans at an increased rate.
6. When CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at an increased rate, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. When the sun's radiance decreases its irradiance into the earth's oceans, the oceans cool.
8. When the oceans cool, CO2 condenses into the oceans at an increased rate.
9. When CO2 condenses into the oceans at an increased rate, CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at a decreased rate.
10. When CO2 evaporates into the atmosphere at a decreased rate, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for IPCC: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1977 was caused by humans and what percentage was caused by the sun and earth's oceans?

Russian scientists predict cold period and dismiss "hothouse" theory. I find the article humorous and fairly plausible, much more plausible than the wild eyed Al Gore for sure. It will be interesting to see what happens to the doomsday global warmers when the temperatures begin to drop. We may be seeing just the beginning of it now. I am now watching a program on the record snowfalls in the Colorado rockies, anecdotal, but we are seeing this phenomena in lots of places around the world.

"This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

.......

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean's surface warms up, it produces the "champagne effect." Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold."

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

The fluorescent light bulb craze is about to implode. I love it.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331689,00.html

Question for IPCC or anyone else: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1976 was caused by humans and what percentage was caused by the sun and earth's oceans?

ican: Answer from the IPCC; essentially all of the increase is due to human activity:

From the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, p.115:

Carbon Dioxide
Emissions of CO2 (Figure 1a) from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times. The remainder of the increase comes from land use changes dominated by deforestation (and associated biomass burning) with contributions from changing agricultural practices. All these increases are caused by human activity. The natural carbon cycle cannot explain the observed atmospheric increase of 3.2 to 4.1 GtC yr-1 in the form of CO2 over the last 25 years. (One GtC equals 1015 grams of carbon, i.e., one billion tonnes.)
Natural processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, decay and sea surface gas exchange lead to massive exchanges, sources and sinks of CO2 between the land and atmosphere (estimated at ~120 GtC yr-1) and the ocean and atmosphere (estimated at ~90 GtC yr-1; see figure 7.3). The natural sinks of carbon produce a small net uptake of CO2 of approximately 3.3 GtC yr-1 over the last 15 years, partially offsetting the human-caused emissions. Were it not for the natural sinks taking up nearly half the human-produced CO2 over the past 15 years, atmospheric concentrations would have grown even more dramatically.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. A heavy form of carbon, the carbon-13 isotope, is less abundant in vegetation and in fossil fuels that were formed from past vegetation, and is more abundant in carbon in the oceans and in volcanic or geothermal emissions. The relative amount of the carbon-13 isotope in the atmosphere has been declining, showing that the added carbon comes from fossil fuels and vegetation. Carbon also has a rare radioactive isotope, carbon-14, which is present in atmospheric CO2 but absent in fossil fuels. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide
Emissions of CO2 (Figure 1a) from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times. The remainder of the increase comes from land use changes dominated by deforestation (and associated biomass burning) with contributions from changing agricultural practices. All these increases are caused by human activity. The natural carbon cycle cannot explain the observed atmospheric increase of 3.2 to 4.1 GtC yr-1 in the form of CO2 over the last 25 years. (One GtC equals 1015 grams of carbon, i.e., one billion tonnes.)
Natural processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, decay and sea surface gas exchange lead to massive exchanges, sources and sinks of CO2 between the land and atmosphere (estimated at ~120 GtC yr-1) and the ocean and atmosphere (estimated at ~90 GtC yr-1; see figure 7.3). The natural sinks of carbon produce a small net uptake of CO2 of approximately 3.3 GtC yr-1 over the last 15 years, partially offsetting the human-caused emissions. Were it not for the natural sinks taking up nearly half the human-produced CO2 over the past 15 years, atmospheric concentrations would have grown even more dramatically.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. A heavy form of carbon, the carbon-13 isotope, is less abundant in vegetation and in fossil fuels that were formed from past vegetation, and is more abundant in carbon in the oceans and in volcanic or geothermal emissions. The relative amount of the carbon-13 isotope in the atmosphere has been declining, showing that the added carbon comes from fossil fuels and vegetation. Carbon also has a rare radioactive isotope, carbon-14, which is present in atmospheric CO2 but absent in fossil fuels. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere.
Carbon Dioxide
Emissions of CO2 (Figure 1a) from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times. The remainder of the increase comes from land use changes dominated by deforestation (and associated biomass burning) with contributions from changing agricultural practices. All these increases are caused by human activity. The natural carbon cycle cannot explain the observed atmospheric increase of 3.2 to 4.1 GtC yr-1 in the form of CO2 over the last 25 years. (One GtC equals 1015 grams of carbon, i.e., one billion tonnes.)
Natural processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, decay and sea surface gas exchange lead to massive exchanges, sources and sinks of CO2 between the land and atmosphere (estimated at ~120 GtC yr-1) and the ocean and atmosphere (estimated at ~90 GtC yr-1; see figure 7.3). The natural sinks of carbon produce a small net uptake of CO2 of approximately 3.3 GtC yr-1 over the last 15 years, partially offsetting the human-caused emissions. Were it not for the natural sinks taking up nearly half the human-produced CO2 over the past 15 years, atmospheric concentrations would have grown even more dramatically.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. A heavy form of carbon, the carbon-13 isotope, is less abundant in vegetation and in fossil fuels that were formed from past vegetation, and is more abundant in carbon in the oceans and in volcanic or geothermal emissions. The relative amount of the carbon-13 isotope in the atmosphere has been declining, showing that the added carbon comes from fossil fuels and vegetation. Carbon also has a rare radioactive isotope, carbon-14, which is present in atmospheric CO2 but absent in fossil fuels. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm click on Frequently Asked Questions, p.115

oops, double copied the citation. Well, that's okay. Read it twice, ican, maybe it'll sink in this time.

And, no, the increased CO2 does not come from the sun's effect on the oceans, the way you repeatedly post, ican.

I see you didn't do the math, the way I suggested you should dozens of pages back. Instead you just repost your same misinterpretation.

Find a chart of solubility of CO2 in H20 with respect to temperature. For an increase in temp. of 1o C, there is a decrease of CO@ in water of about 2%, IF THE AMOUNT IN SOLUTION IS AT SATURATION. If the oceans were at saturation, they wouldn't reliably act as a sink year after year for half ot the anthropogenic CO2, and they wouldn't become increasingly acidic year by year as the CO2 forms carbonic acid. If the oceans were outgassing CO2, they'd become more basic. They have gone the other direction for decades as anthrop.CO2 increases.

Further, by those ideal gas laws and Henry's Law, remember them, from your misguided Boyle's Law foray, partial pressure of a gas in the atmosphere is directly proportional to the number of moleucles of that gas in the atmosphere, and the amount of a gas that will go into solution in a liquid is directly proportional to that partial pressure of that gas in the atmosphere. Since CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third in the last century or so, therefore the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 has to have risen by about a third as well.

Possible outgassing of CO2 because of temp. change in the last century (if the oceans had reached saturation, which they hadn't):2%

Increase in capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 over the last entury: around 35%..

Inescapable conclusion: It's not coming from the oceans, ican.

You really ought to try running the numbers. It's very enlightening, ican.

There is NO global data for oceans' pH, just calculations from... models.
So your claim is no more than "it's true because I said it's true".
BTW, oceans' pH is 7.5 to 8.5. So saying a pH decrease causes them to be more "acidic" is scientifically incorrect.

All the numbers show is we don't know how to attribute the current CO2 trends, either to human emissions or to natural ocean or terrestrial biosphere degazing. The IPCC has no credible papers to support it's estimation of the human contribution to CO2 rise.

But if you're still not convinced that it's ocean temperature (SST) which causes CO2 increase (or decrease), just plot CO2 changes versus SST. It show that the 2 variables are strongly correlated. And since CO2 changes can't possibly change SST in such short time, it means it is caused by SST, which means humans' CO2 emissions (only 3% of biosphere-atmosphere CO2 exchanges) has a negligible role in the CO2 atm concentration.
(see links for data here if you wish to check the numbers, and no doubt you'll do it :wink: : http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002789.html )

Interesting, miniTax. Well of course rising SST and rising CO2 are related. Only thing is, you've got the causal loop backwards. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer the land and the ocean. Simple physics. Therefore the SST will increase. So you get that nice graph you show. It just doesn't mean what you think it means. Rising SST is an effect, not a cause. Nice try, tho.

There are also a number of quite credible studies that show ocean pHs falling and increasing CO2 concentration in the oceans, as well as macro effects like coral bleaching and problems with marine invertebrate shell formation, not to mention changing bicarbonate saturation horizons. They're not based on models, but on measurement.

And I suggest you read the IPCC FAR. As quoted above, sources of atmospheric CO2 increase have human fingerprints on them (metaphorically speaking, of course). We know what we're producing and how much. We know the sinks that sequester it. We know what's left. We know the isotopic portrait of the change. As the IPCC says, natural processes can't explain that.

No, you don't understand the matter. There are many occasions when there is a DECREASE in ocean's temperatures, like after eruptions (Pinatubo has caused a global cooling of of 0.5°C for 3 years !) or La Nina. And the CO2 change decrease also. So the causation can only be SST -> CO2 and not the reverse since CO2 from human emission is supposed to only increase. Don't confound reality with perception.

Then show us one study based on pH measurements and not models. Just ONE.
The global pH measurements don't exist. Just because you wish so doesn't make it exist deus ex machina. No way.

No, we don't. The isotopic dosage can in no way determine the proportion of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. If you had really read the FAR, you'd have known it. The IPCC is even obliged to introduce the incredible notion of "missing sink" to account for the missing carbon in its balance : http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm
Please, don't claim the IPCC knows what it does not.

NATURAL CYCLES

Ocean water evaporates continually, 24 hours per day, every day of the year. Ocean water evaporates into the atmosphere. The rate of that evaporation varies with the temperature of the ocean's surface water and the temperature of the lower atmosphere. The warmer are those temperatures the higher that rate, and the cooler those temperatures the lower that rate. When the H2O mixed with CO2 in the atmosphere precipitates into the ocean, that CO2 also precipitates into the ocean. The rate of that precipitation decreases with increasing atmospheric temperature, and increases with decreasing atmospheric temperature.

CO2 is mixed with ocean water. The CO2 mixed with evaporating ocean water increases the CO2 as well as the H2O in the atmosphere. However, the density of CO2 in the ocean while fluctuating is gradually increasing.

Some of the sun's irradiance heats ocean water and some heats the atmosphere. The greater the intensity of the sun's irradiance the greater the heating of the ocean and the atmosphere. The less the intensity of the sun's irradiance the less the heating of the ocean and the atmosphere. The intensity of sun's irradiance varies over time. Over the last 100 years the intensity of the sun's irradiance, while greatly fluctuating, has been gradually increasing.


A 3000+ year look at Sargossa sea level temperatures up to 2006


Solar Activity versus to CO2 activity


US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity

Question for IPCC or anyone else: What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1976 was caused by evaporation of CO2 mixed with ocean water?