tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post7371897185816849273..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds only ~3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made from burning of fossil fuelsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-24966144896903812632014-07-31T11:25:57.156-07:002014-07-31T11:25:57.156-07:00Thank you too for all your help, and I just notice...Thank you too for all your help, and I just noticed I've been misspelling your first name as Denika instead of Denica. I'll correct that as well. It's been one of those weeks...MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-58036523375686999732014-07-31T11:19:30.293-07:002014-07-31T11:19:30.293-07:00Dear (future Dr.) Bozhinova, thanks for the clarif...Dear (future Dr.) Bozhinova, thanks for the clarification! Anyway it has triggered a lot of discussion here and at WUWT. I hope you enjoyed the sometimes fierce arguments of all sides in the quite diverse group that the skeptics are. And I hope that you in your later work will remember that discussions are the part of science that keeps science healthy: a "consensus" kills scientific progress, critique and discussions do advance science...<br /><br />BTW, was several times near Wageningen, biking through the Veluwe, beautiful in August-September... And I had a few discussions with Tom van Hoof from Wageningen University about the reliability of stomata data as CO2 proxy...Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.benoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86110468040543702032014-07-31T10:19:07.234-07:002014-07-31T10:19:07.234-07:00Thanks HS.Thanks HS.Alan Robertsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-72938626617791885422014-07-31T09:58:42.238-07:002014-07-31T09:58:42.238-07:00Thanks for setting the record straight!
P.S. It i...Thanks for setting the record straight!<br /><br />P.S. It is Denica ;)Denica Bozhinovahttps://www.linkedin.com/pub/denica-bozhinova/21/328/701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-21426235537645547902014-07-23T10:29:00.811-07:002014-07-23T10:29:00.811-07:00As the lead author in the cited scientific article...As the lead author in the cited scientific article ( www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/7273/2014/ ), I would like to address several key points of our study, which I believe were misunderstood by the author of this blog entry and are misleading the readers.<br /><br />(1) The paper does not state that (quote from the blog) "only ~3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made from burning of fossil fuels", this thought was constructed by the blog-writer and conclusions drawn from it are entirely his/her own.<br />(2) The paper does not state that (quote from the blog) “only 15 ppm or ~11.5% of the increase (in CO2 since pre-industrial times) is of fossil fuel origin”. This again is a creation by the blog-writer.<br /><br />As it is quite challenging to untangle the information extracted from our article and the conclusions, which the author of this blog is drawing from it, I hope for your patience in reading this undoubtedly long reply.<br /><br />It might be easiest to point out first that the cited sentence („We find that the average gradients... “) from our abstract, which is possibly the centerpiece in this blog entry, is preceded in the article by several sentences explaining the temporal and spatial scope of our study – 6 summertime months in 2008 over Western Europe.<br /><br />This explanation should already address the misconception that the cited 15 ppm of fossil fuel CO2 are the global average concentrations and cover the historical period since the pre-industrial era. Rather the opposite, those are the gradients in the newly added fossil fuel CO2 concentrations in Western Europe within the 6 month period covered in our study. <br /><br />If you read the research article carefully you will find that the phrase used in both title and front-running paragraph of this blog entry ("only ~3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made from burning of fossil fuels") is nowhere to be found in our article. This is because we aim at evaluating only the recently added anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere in a particular region of the world. <br /><br />All the older (previously added, both anthropogenic and natural) CO2, as well as the CO2 being added during the 6 months of our study but outside of our research region are included in the term 'background CO2' in our study. This crucial point might have been overlooked by the blog-writer as we are using terminology and methods from previously published research (with provided references) that he/she might have not looked into. It is common and good practice in our field to use previously defined terminology.<br /><br />I appreciate all the feedback and scepticism about our results as shown by the commenters here. I would, however, ask the author of the blog entry to try and be more careful in his summary of this and other scientific studies, especially when he makes claims about the findings that are nowhere in the article itself.Denica Bozhinovahttps://www.linkedin.com/pub/denica-bozhinova/21/328/701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-76667034380031514802014-07-22T09:14:39.634-07:002014-07-22T09:14:39.634-07:00Hansen's data shows that since 1960, man-made ...Hansen's data shows that since 1960, man-made CO2 emissions have increased by a factor of 4, yet the airborne fraction of man-made CO2 has decreased 25% from 60% to 45%. <br /><br />Quoting Hansen: "However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean's upper layers)." But, it did not, according to Hansen because carbon sinks like CO2 fertilization of plants compensated by greening the planet. There is no evidence that such carbon sinks will stop compensating in the future, that the greening of the planet will not continue thanks to CO2 emissions. <br /><br />The new paper in this post shows the total cumulative man-made contribution of CO2 is only 15%, due to erroneous prior assumptions about C14 levels in the atmosphere, failing to recognize the significant C14 source from nuclear power. Only ~11% of the increase in CO2 levels was from fossil fuels, 89% from primarily natural sources. <br /><br />The significant decrease in airborne fraction over the past 50 years with man-made CO2 emissions increasing 400% clearly demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the primary source of the increase in CO2 levels. This new paper corroborates by showing current man-made CO2 levels are approximately equal to the percentage of man-made emissions, thus the primary cause of the CO2 increase is clearly not due to man.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-29662477757389885762014-07-22T08:59:21.694-07:002014-07-22T08:59:21.694-07:00Appell: For a substance to become "more acid...Appell: For a substance to become "more acidic" it has to be acidic i.e. pH < 7.0 to begin with. The more correct terminology for an alkaline substance such as seawater at pH ~8 is "less alkaline" or "less basic" because it will still be alkaline. <br /><br />"Acidification" is off-topic for this thread - please comment on one of the many acidification threads, where you will also find many links demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence that ocean pH has actually decreased, and that the "basic chemistry" you claim to be so simple is actually quite complicated due to the presence of numerous buffering systems in the ocean. <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=acidification<br /><br />http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php<br /><br />http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N17/EDIT.phpMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39336142494499382062014-07-22T08:22:44.973-07:002014-07-22T08:22:44.973-07:00What happened to the 3-4% of CO2 emissions from ma...What happened to the 3-4% of CO2 emissions from man?<br /><br />The global greening of the planet, for one.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=greeningMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89406697376169768392014-07-22T00:34:11.273-07:002014-07-22T00:34:11.273-07:00BTW, the airborne fraction is a matter of two comp...BTW, the airborne fraction is a matter of two competing forces: the extra pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the "equilibrium" pressure for the current temperature, which forces more CO2 into the oceans (and plant uptake) and the effect of the extra pressure and temperature on the in/out fluxes.<br />If we take the pressure difference as base, for the current 110 ppmv extra (231 GtC extra), the net result is ~2 ppmv (4.15 GtC) extra uptake by nature. Over the past 55 years that gives following curve of the airborne fraction as function of pCO2(atm) - pCO2(equi):<br />http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg<br />Still largely within natural variability (here as 12-month running mean).Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.benoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-73910220660845188822014-07-21T20:00:48.632-07:002014-07-21T20:00:48.632-07:00"The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, and sca..."The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, and scant evidence of a decrease in ocean pH."<br /><br />All chemical compounds have a property called "acidity," and when it increases it is perfectly proper to say it is acidifying.<br /><br />There is a symetric argument for alkalinity. But "debasification" is a mouthful, and obscures the point. There is ample evidence of a declining pH, with significantly more to come. It's basic chemistry.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-76698657236924058982014-07-21T19:57:03.877-07:002014-07-21T19:57:03.877-07:00This paper's claim is difficult to believe. Wh...This paper's claim is difficult to believe. What happened to the ~1500 Gt CO2 the world has emitted from burning fossil fuels?<br /><br />I expect someone willl find a major error in this paper soon. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-8068918354464578852014-07-21T19:40:56.879-07:002014-07-21T19:40:56.879-07:00"The natural world is actually a net absorber..."The natural world is actually a net absorber of our CO2 emissions, which of course is why the oceans are becoming more acidic"<br /><br />The oceans are alkaline, not acidic, and scant evidence of a decrease in ocean pH<br /><br />"Hence 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the pre-industrial is anthropogenic. That means current atmospheric CO2 is 30% anthropogenic, not 3%."<br /><br />Non-sequitur. <br /><br />The airborne fraction of man-made CO2 has decreased over the past 60 years<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/hansens-mea-culpa-says-man-made-global.html<br /><br />and this paper finds the fraction of current atmospheric levels from fossil fuels = fraction of current emissions from fossil fuels, thus no build-up of anthropogenic CO2.<br /><br /> MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-24717650518850757422014-07-21T15:11:44.627-07:002014-07-21T15:11:44.627-07:00Agreed that the Bern model is flawed, as that is b...Agreed that the Bern model is flawed, as that is based on the saturation of the deep oceans. But the 5 years residence time is irrelevant and the 14 years lifetime is too short: that is based on the decay rate of the 14C spike of the 1950's atomic bomb tests. But the huge exchange with the deep oceans (~40 GtC/year) which is 500-1500 years old is a lot lower in 14C than the bomb spike, which makes the decay rate of 14C a lot faster than the decay rate of the human "spike", about a factor 3.Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-84153723515078229572014-07-21T14:47:58.227-07:002014-07-21T14:47:58.227-07:00The natural world is actually a net absorber of ou...The natural world is actually a net absorber of our CO2 emissions, which of course is why the oceans are becoming more acidic. Hence 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the pre-industrial is anthropogenic. That means current atmospheric CO2 is 30% anthropogenic, not 3%. An order of magnitude error in the study's results is quite impressive!Icarus62noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63575629104334796212014-07-21T13:47:30.830-07:002014-07-21T13:47:30.830-07:00Squidly and others, it doesn't matter how much...Squidly and others, it doesn't matter how much CO2 is in the oceans, what matters is the pressure difference. If you shake a 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 liter bottle of Coke from the same batch at the same temperature, you will see the same pressure under the cork (slightly less in the smaller bottle due to the larger loss in the smaller amount of liquid). Henry's Law for seawater gives some 17 microatm more CO2 pressure for 1 K temperature increase. Thus an increase of ~17 ppmv in the atmosphere will fully compensate for the increase in temperature. Except if you think that the oceans have heated a lot more than 1 K since the LIA. That is the maximum increase from warming oceans... Vegetation goes the other way out, thus reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere for increasing temperatures (to about 8 ppmv/K in combination with the oceans)... <br />The rest of the 100+ ppmv is from humans.Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53705589718969837522014-07-21T13:01:21.940-07:002014-07-21T13:01:21.940-07:00So a large part of the CO2 is due to plants... and...So a large part of the CO2 is due to plants... and thanks to human technology more of the planet is covered by plant life now than it was a hundred years ago... so the CO2 is kind of man-made!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-12985067213419283592014-07-21T08:33:30.423-07:002014-07-21T08:33:30.423-07:00Did you notice this research is a simulation? As ...Did you notice this research is a simulation? As in a guess computed using a model. It is therefore not factual data about measurements collected in nature., so you can't present this as evidence of the sources of CO2. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9353568041555401542014-07-21T07:59:54.859-07:002014-07-21T07:59:54.859-07:00No, not volanic aerosols. Manmade aerosols (before...No, not volanic aerosols. Manmade aerosols (before air pollution controls).David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-70435521766716296162014-07-21T07:57:46.390-07:002014-07-21T07:57:46.390-07:00Adrian, your Pinatubo claim is wrong. It emitted o...Adrian, your Pinatubo claim is wrong. It emitted only 0.05 Gt CO2; man now emits about 35 Gt CO2. See:<br /><br />"Volcanic vs Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide," T Gerlach, EOS v92 n24, June 14, 2011.<br />http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69571045345117501552014-07-21T07:00:09.291-07:002014-07-21T07:00:09.291-07:00Not half-life of CO2 but half-life of Carbon-14 an...Not half-life of CO2 but half-life of Carbon-14 an isotope of carbon with a half-life of over 5000 years..Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-84243916518181133082014-07-21T06:57:13.463-07:002014-07-21T06:57:13.463-07:00The CO2 molecule is made up of three atoms and one...The CO2 molecule is made up of three atoms and one is carbon. But there is Carbon-12 and two isotopes Carbon-13 and Carbon-14.<br /><br />This article is about Carbon-12 and Carbon-14. Unfortunately the researchers omitted Carbon-13 which is taken up by plants and marine organisms. <br /><br /> Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69425385626533115342014-07-21T06:54:03.632-07:002014-07-21T06:54:03.632-07:00Not saying that it's outgassing from the ocean...Not saying that it's outgassing from the oceans, but Henry's law applies to Coca Cola too. <br /><br />When the Coke warms up the CO2 bubbles away and you get flat pop. <br /><br />There is also CO2 from volacanoes, something that has always made me feel uncomfortable about the measurements at Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa is the largest subaerial volcano in both mass and volume, and has historically been considered the largest volcano on Earth.<br /><br />Over geological time volcanoes have been the main source of carbon dioxide and the oceans the main carbon sink. The current geological period is one of the lowest ever in CO2 density and plants are relatively starved of CO2. Possibly 1500 parts per million would suit plants much more than the measly 400 ppm they get now.<br /><br />Humans manage quite well up to about 8000 ppm. Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-34794031809025965212014-07-21T06:43:24.971-07:002014-07-21T06:43:24.971-07:00Fossil fuels are so old that there is no Carbon-14...Fossil fuels are so old that there is no Carbon-14 left. So it is easy to distinguish CO2 from fossil fuels and CO2 from nuclear reactors.<br /><br />Carbon-13 is found in plants and the shells of marine animals and foraminifera.Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-11433281555600756962014-07-20T10:05:59.880-07:002014-07-20T10:05:59.880-07:00IMHO modelers accounted for cooling between the 19...IMHO modelers accounted for cooling between the 1940's and 1970's by really juicing volcanic aerosol emissions.<br />Those aerosol quantities, heavily sulfur oxides were greatly exaggerated to fit the paradigm. <br />Obviously, if SOx emissions were high so would be the CO2. Not commenting on this paper, just making a point of alarmist speak from both sides of the coin. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27512358633244507552014-07-20T00:17:18.398-07:002014-07-20T00:17:18.398-07:00@Anonymous,
Which also correlates with the fact t...@Anonymous,<br /><br />Which also correlates with the fact that sea water contains CO2 in concentration 3,000 times that of the atmosphere. It takes only but a very slight change in ocean temperature to have a very large impact to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Precisely how atmospheric CO2 concentration has been around 3,000ppmv for the better part of the past 10,000 years.Squidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916585097070823476noreply@blogger.com