NASA finds Antarctic ice shelf a few years from disintegration

a reply to: Nathan-D

But it cannot tell us how much humans have contributed to the atmospheric increased since 1850, and hence, does not tell us anything about the adjustment time.

You have not provided another source for the increase in atmospheric (and oceanic) CO2 concentrations.

Measurements of C14 would actually suggest that it has a longer residence time than C13 and C12 (Segalstad 1998).

But, oddly, its concentration is decreasing. Why would that be? Do you think it may have something to do with the dilution effect of millions upon millions upon millions of tons of 14C depleted organic material being burned?

But it cannot tell us how much humans have contributed to the atmospheric increased since 1850, and hence, does not tell us anything about the adjustment time.

Were is the 14C depleted CO2 coming from? Any clue? What is responsible for the increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2?

Whatever Phage. It's getting late over here, I think I'll call it a night.

"Whatever." My pre-teen daughter says it a lot. It's the ultimate dismissal when no cogent argument can be presented. Good night.

This is ridiculous Phage. You evidently do not even understand the difference between adjustment time and residence time despite me showing you clear-as-day in my last post that it is mathematically impossible for anthropogenic CO2 molecules to stay in the atmosphere on average for longer than 3.8 years before absorption based on the IPCC's own figures. I'll leave it to other members here (i.e. anyone with an IQ higher than a coffee-table) to try to explain the difference to you.

a reply to: Nathan-D
It's a simple question.

What is the source of increasing atmospheric and oceanic CO2? You acknowledged that the 12C/13C ratio indicates organic material as the source. If it is not the combustion of fossil fuels, why is the relative level of 14C decreasing at a much greater rate than radioactive decay would call for?

I'll leave it to other members here (i.e. anyone with an IQ higher than a coffee-table) to try to explain the difference to you.

Ad hominem. About equivalent to "whatever."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D
It's a simple question.
You acknowledged that the 12C/13C ratio indicates organic material as the source. If it is not the combustion of fossil fuels, why is the relative level of 14C decreasing at a much greater rate than radioactive decay would call for?

How many times must this be explained to you, Phage? The change in atmospheric isotopic composition is irrelevant to the question of adjustment time. I have explained this to you at least several times now – you ignore me, and just respond by reasserting your original point. I am amazed that are still misrepresenting my argument at this late stage in the discussion.

Let me try to explain this again and for the last time. Naturogenic CO2 emissions (let’s call them NCO2 for short) in IPCC’s AR4 in 2007 gives estimates of 771 gt/yr for emissions of NCO2 and 29 gt/yr for ACO2. These figures imply that the ratio of NCO2 to ACO2 being emitted is 771:29, which reduces to about ~26:1. Now imagine a jacusi so as to represent the flow-dynamics of the situation and imagine that you open the NCO2 tap first so that the NCO2-water pours into it at the rate of 771 gt/yr. When you see that the jacusi contains about 2,240 gt of NCO2-water (equivalent to about 280 ppmv of NCO2 - it’s a big jacusi) and is flowing steadily out of the outlet-port, you turn on the ACO2 tap and start pouring the ACO2-water in too at the rate of 29 gt/yr. Thus the ACO2 and NCO2 water-streams are flowing into the jacusi at rates that are in the ratio of 1:26 accordingly. Both streams of water are now pouring into the jacusi where the ACO2 and NCO2 molecules mix indiscriminately. But now the question arises as to the ratio of ACO2 and NCO2 at which the jacusi-water will stabilise. This is easy to answer in principle: it will stabilise at the ratio of 1:26. What is the significance of all these observations? They imply, with mathematical certainty that ACO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere at 1/26th of the rate at which NCO2 is also accumulating! However, with the climate-system, according to the IPCC’s figures, NCO2 emission and absorption are approximately balanced, and so the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases – even though they are not the same molecules. Do you get it now? It means that your isotopic graphs of atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly be a check on adjustment time because you have calculated the value of a different variable to mine. There is no reason for them to be equal any more than there is a reason for the height of your house to be equal to the height of the tree in your garden.

In reality the scenario above is slightly more complicated, since some ACO2 molecules will inevitably be recycled back into the atmosphere once they have been absorbed. However given the oceans are so vast and contain so much more NCO2 than the ACO2 they are absorbing (and because the removal from the surface-ocean to the deep-ocean is fast; with a residence time of 10 years) the amount of ACO2 being recycled from the sinks in this way would be negligible and not enough to significantly affect the results of the calculation. The reason as to why the atmospheric isotopic ratios are still decreasing is simply because the total atmospheric CO2 mass has increased and this increases the residence time which means it takes longer for ACO2 to be removed from the atmosphere, thus continuing to change the isotopic ratios. The IPCC’s carbon-cycle figures are confusing to the average person, since the IPCC tags the ACO2 atmospheric pool at around 165Gts in AR4. The IPCC do this not because these are ACO2 molecules, but because that is how much the atmospheric CO2 level is assumed to have increased due to our emissions increasing the CO2 level due to the adjustment time. But these are not the same molecules. This has been demonstrated empirically by observations of the C12/C13 ratio (expressed as δ13C). The atmospheric CO2 mass has a δ13C permil value of -7 and anthropogenic (including biogenic) CO2 has a δ13C permil value of -26. Assuming that humans increased the atmospheric CO2 content from 280ppmv to 400ppmv (as it stands today) we get a permil value of 14.4 (i.e. 40% of -26 and 60% of -7). However the actual current permil value is around 8.2 implying that the maximum amount of ACO2 currently in the atmosphere (including any biogenic CO2) is about 6%, in accordance with the residence time of around 4-5 years (depending on who you speak to).

What is the source of increasing atmospheric and oceanic CO2?

Why do you require a source to understand mathematics? This has already been explained to you on several occasions Phage. However my attempts to explain and reason with you in order to engage with your intelligence instead of with your self-assertive ego have been utterly futile. ACO2 can increase oceanic and atmospheric CO2 concentrations if the oceans have absorbed more ACO2 than they have naturally outgassed from the temperature-changes. This is rather straightforward. Why are you having such difficulty understanding it? And indeed, this must have happened. But also, increased CO2 in the ocean is not a unique signature of CO2 dissolution.

a reply to: Nathan-D

ACO2 can increase oceanic and atmospheric CO2 concentrations if the oceans have absorbed more ACO2 than they have naturally outgassed from the temperature-changes. This is rather straightforward.

Yes it is straightforward. So you agree that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Nathan-D

Except experimental fact shows that carbon in the oceans is increasing, not decreasing.

Today, oceans are sinks of CO2, not sources.

And yes, it's not at equilibrium now because of the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from new emissions, i.e. fossil fuel burning. There is an effective gradient causing carbon to go into the ocean, therefore acidifying it.

I would agree that the oceans are net-sources. However the oceans can cause an increase in CO2 due to temperature-changes while at the same time absorbing more excess CO2 than they outgas from the temperature-change.

In which case the ocean is a net sink, not a net source, right?

originally posted by: [post=19406131]mbkennel
In which case the ocean is a net sink, not a net source, right?

That is what I meant to say, indeed. Typo. I was agreeing with him on that point. But I also said this may not be the case and increased CO2 in the surface-ocean is not just a result of CO2 dissolution from the atmosphere, and cited Evans et al 2011 and Jaworowski et al 1992.

But just to explain how this would be possible (i.e. how the ocean could be a net-sink while also causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to temperature-changes) one must understand Henry's law. To quote myself: Henry’s law relates the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere above the oceans to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in them by the equation: p = kHc where p is the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 at the surface; kH is Henry’s Constant, and c is the corresponding concentration of dissolved CO2. Henry’s law sets a fixed ‘partitioning ratio’ between the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the total amount dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature. This ratio is unchanged by changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The current partitioning ratio at the Earth’s average surface temperature of 15C is ~1/50. Let me illustrate what happens when we apply Henry’s law to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and an increase in ocean temperature. Suppose the Earth’s oceans contained 40,000Gts/carbon and the atmosphere contained 800Gts/carbon which is approximately how much carbon resides in them both. Now suppose the temperature of the oceans increased by 5C above the average surface temperature of 15C to a new temperature of 20C. Under the action the equilibrium partitioning ratio would shift from ~1/50 to ~1/40 and 200Gts/carbon would be released into the atmosphere upon equilibrium, although this release of course would not be instantaneous. Now, suppose the Vogon Destructor fleet passes by and decides to dump all of its colossal stores of CO2-waste amounting to 800Gts/carbon onto poor, unsuspecting planet Earth, thereby giving it a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2. Upon that CO2 entering the atmosphere it would immediately create a disequilibrium between CO2(g) and CO2(aq) and thereupon 97% of that CO2 would be absorbed by the oceans upon equilibrium in accordance with the new 1/40 partitioning ratio. In this case the oceans have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to an increase in their temperature while also absorbing virtually all of the increase in CO2 that was dumped into the atmosphere, which was four times as much as the oceans released. When you increase the ocean temperature and increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the same time you create a displacement of the atmospheric/ocean interface from equilibrium conditions and to maintain equilibrium these perturbations force the reaction to the ‘left’ and ‘right’ simultaneously in accordance with the Law of Mass Action. The end result in our hypothetical Earth scenario is that upon equilibrium 97% (i.e. 780Gts/carbon) of CO2 from the Vogon Destructor fleet will be absorbed by the oceans and 200Gts/carbon will be emitted by the oceans due to the temperature-change. The point here is that the oceans can absorb the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 and if they warmed they could also account for a large portion of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 as well.

Anyway, Phage seems to think that the isotopic measurements of atmospheric C14, C12 and C13 are somehow important to the question of adjustment time. Atmospheric C14, C12 and C13 are all taken out of the atmosphere very fast. The residence time for C14 in the atmosphere is about 12 years. The following graph below is from Monckton of the removal of C14 after the 1963 nuclear test-ban treaty. You can pull the exact same graph from Wikipedia.

wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com...

The C14 is removed from the atmosphere very fast. My point was, that this tells us nothing about the adjustment time. If Phage can ever get his head around this, I'll be back in the future to discuss this more. Until then, I bid you farewell. I have better things to do.