On an unnamed climate hysteria propaganda blog, a commentator named Stu asked me to comment on this post by Anthony Watts. The unnamed host of this propaganda blog twice declined to publish my response. Of course, the host could decide to publish my comment at any time in the future. Such are the silly childish games played at that site.
Well, Stu, here’s my twice censored reply (verbatim):
I read only what Watts posted.
Like Watts, I would approach this with caution. It seems to suggest that -- if we witness another cooling trend similar to roughly 1940-1979 -- we might see a drop in atmospheric CO2 levels. It’s possible, but I doubt it -- I’ll get back to that shortly.
Beyond that, the study seems to be fundamentally in agreement with what is born out in every ice core study -- that during each of the previous 6 interglacial warming periods, temperature has primarily driven CO2, not the other way around.
This is not to deny the physics of (the logarithmic nature) of CO2 energy absorption, only to put into proper perspective the primary relationship between temperature and CO2. As temperatures rise, CO2 is released from the oceans -- with, on average, an 800 year lag. As temperatures drop, CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans -- with, on average a 2,000 to 4,000 year lag. Given how slowly CO2 is reabsorbed, I doubt a 40 year cooling trend would significantly drop the atmospheric CO2 levels.
The fact that CO2 remains elevated for 2,000 to 4,000 years AFTER temperatures plunge into the next glacial period speaks to just how weak a forcing factor CO2 really is -- relative to other forcing factors.
Click here to fully substantiate each of the above assertions via directly cited peer reviewed science.
Now, if that study plays into the current fear mongering over ocean pH, I say this:
1) Dr. Lubos Motl addresses that baloney as well as anybody. It’s hard to get worked up when even the IPCC predicts the oceans will remain on the alkaline side of a neutral pH (7.8) even by 2100, even if we do NOTHING to reduce CO2 emissions.
2) For those who fret over coral reefs, click here and begin to grasp just how resilient and adaptable life on this planet really is.
P.S.) Click here for a far more comprehensive examination of the ocean acidification hysteria.
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding, but I was really after a comment on Beck's work. But no matter, it was interesting nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteThe chemical measurements are reasonably accurate, but horribly unrepresentative of anything other than local boundary layer conditions (definitely not representative of the free troposphere).
That temperature drives CO2 on long timescales of hundreds to thousands of years does not preclude CO2 being a driver in the current scenario, where the increase has little to do with rising temperatures (although I have seen people argue that the current rise is due to the MWP! You have to ignore a lot of evidence to reach that conclusion...).
On a related note, if CO2 was not being added anthropogenically, then yes a cooling over several decades might produce a small dip in CO2 concentration.
However, as the increase (which is mostly independent of temperature) shows no signs of slowing soon, even if there is cooling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise proportional to the rate at which it is added by human activity.
When entering an ice age, the fact that CO2 falls slowly (and doesn't prevent the ice age) only goes to show that the changes in albedo are a bigger forcing. AGW doesn't rely on CO2 being the biggest forcing possible, only that it isn't a negligible forcing.