Posts Tagged ‘carbon dioxide’

Young coral reefs will be unaffected by any ocean acidification due to increased carbon dioxide

August 14, 2013

Well now!

File:PH Scale.svg

pH scale : Wikipedia

While I have no belief in the fanciful theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions will have any significant effect on global warming, I have no doubt that an increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will lower the pH of the ocean (and they will only be more acidic in the sense of reducing alkanity though with a pH remaining well over 7.0). In fact it is likely that oceans will maintain a pH over 8.0 even in the worst scenarios. (Liquid solutions are usually described as acidic with a pH of less than 7.0 and as alkaline with a pH over 7.0 though on the continuous pH scale any reduction of alkanity is per force an increase of acidity and vice versa).

A new paper shows that the hypothesised catastrophic scenarios about ocean “acidification” (more correctly – a reduction of alkanity) and the consequent effects on coral reefs are little more than fantasy because they find that “there will be no direct ecological effects of ocean acidification on the early life-history stages of reef corals, at least in the near future”.

CM Chua, W Leggat, A Moya, AH Baird. Near-future reductions in pH will have no consistent ecological effects on the early life-history stages of reef coralsMarine Ecology Progress Series, 2013; 486: 143 DOI:10.3354/meps10318

Abstract: Until recently, research into the consequences of oceanic uptake of CO2 for corals focused on its effect on physiological processes, in particular, calcification. However, events early in the life history of corals are also likely to be vulnerable to changes in ocean chemistry caused by increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (ocean acidification). We tested the effect of reduced pH on embryonic development, larval survivorship and metamorphosis of 3 common scleractinian corals from the Great Barrier Reef. We used 4 treatment levels of pH, corresponding to the current level of ocean pH and 3 values projected to occur later this century. None of the early life-history stages we studied were consistently affected by reduced pH. Our results suggest that there will be no direct ecological effects of ocean acidification on the early life-history stages of reef corals, at least in the near future.

ScienceDaily:

Corals can survive the early stages of their development even under the tough conditions that rising carbon emissions will impose on them says a new study from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. …. 

Dr Andrew Baird, Principal Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and James Cook University, was part of the research team and explains their findings.

“The prevailing view is that ocean acidification will act like a toxin to corals, but we were unconvinced by results from previous work on young corals and ocean acidification so we tested critical early stages of development in several coral species at several different acid (or ‘pH’) concentrations of seawater.

“Our results showed no clear response to increasing ocean acidification in any of the stages, or for any of the coral species,” says Dr Baird. “In fact, in only one of nine experiments did we get the response expected if CO2 was acting like a toxin. More often than not we found no effect.”

By bubbling CO2 through seawater the research team was able to simulate future levels of ocean acidification expected to result from rising human carbon emissions. They tested the success of embryo development, the survival of coral larvae and finally their success in settling on coral reefs.

The rest of the reporting by ScienceDaily is almost embarassing as they try to pay lip-service to the orthodoxy of the “the carbon dioxide is evil” fantasy. They waste space in trying to emphasise that even if young corals are not affected this “study does not discount the possibility that coral larvae may suffer other ill-effects from increasing ocean acidification, for example, their swimming speeds may slow down, but because coral larvae typically settle on the reef two or three weeks after birth it is unlikely that these effects will have a major impact on the survival or settlement of coral larvae”.

Further uncertainties in the Carbon cycle

July 4, 2013

The Carbon cycle is far from being fully understood or quantified. The absorption and release of carbon dioxide by the oceans and from biological plants and fungii – both on land and in the ocean – are a long way from being established. The amount of Carbon locked up in the earths crust is equally subject to great uncertainty.

A new paper shows that deep soils hold much higher levels of carbon than is usually assumed.

R. J. Harper, M. Tibbett, The hidden organic carbon in deep mineral soilsPlant and Soil, July 2013, Volume 368, Issue 1-2, pp 641-648

Abstract: Current estimates of soil organic carbon (SOC) are based largely on surficial measurements to depths of 0.3 to 1 m. Many of the world’s soils greatly exceed 1 m depth and there are numerous reports of biological activity to depths of many metres. Although SOC storage to depths of up to 8 m has been previously reported, the extent to which SOC is stored at deeper depths in soil profiles is currently unknown. This paper aims to provide the first detailed analysis of these previously unreported stores of SOC. ….. Mean SOC mass densities for each of the five locations varied from 21.8–37.5 kg C m−2, and were in toto two to five times greater than would be reported with sampling to a depth of 0.5 m.

PhysOrg reportsCurrent estimates of soil organic carbon are based largely on measurements to depths of 30 cm. This approach has evolved in North America and Europe, where soil is generally more shallow. 

However, many plant species have roots extending many metres deep, suggesting there is also carbon stored at such depth and inspiring researchers to explore the storage potential of deeper soils in older landscapes such as the Amazon or Australia. Researchers in the Amazon had previously sampled soils to 8 m. 

The researchers took soil measurements from samples taken to almost 40 metres deep at a range of sites in south-western Australia. They found that small amounts of carbon were present throughout the soils all the way to the bedrock, and that deep soils store up to five times more carbon than is normally reported.

Lead researcher Professor Richard Harper, an expert in water management and sustainability at Murdoch University said the findings extend our concept of the amounts and potential of carbon stored in soils.

“This carbon has been previously overlooked, and this opens up several lines of inquiry – for example, what happens to this carbon with land use change such as deforestation and reforestation?” Professor Harper said.

“There is likely more carbon stored in the world’s soils than previously considered. What will happen to this carbon – that is, will it be released as a result of either land-use change or climate change – is unknown. This is what we are working on now,” he said.

 

Carbon dioxide idiocy – perhaps the EPA should make flatulence punishable

June 26, 2013

Reading Obama’s “Climate Plan” almost  drives me to despair at the idiocy of man!

Obama climate action plan

exhaust gas compositions

 

But only almost.

We have always had idiots and even evolution will not eliminate idiocy. And because like most “policy” statements from whoever is President of the United States, it is 90% rhetoric and 10% substance. He has enough weasel words in there to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and he will not stop the burning of shale gas or the production of shale oil or the export of coal!! He will continue wasting money on nonsense and subsidising useless things which will prolong the lunacy for a little while.

Every living thing converts carbon to carbon dioxide  – the new pollutant. And the argument that it is a matter of scale does not hold. But perhaps we and all our animals can wear Carbon Sequestration masks? And maybe Obama could make flatulence punishable?

The oceans determine the carbon dioxide concentration and not man. I suppose that it will only be when the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere begins to fall – as it will within 2 decades  – that the lunacy might begin to end.

Global warming theory lacks a falsifiable hypothesis and climate policy lacks Conditions of Success

June 21, 2013

In Science – to be considered a science – it is the formulation of the falsifiable hypothesis that is critical and ought to determine the subsequent collection or generation of data.

A fundamental requirement before setting out a new policy or embarking on any new course of action should be to define the Conditions of Success (CoS) prior to starting. This is usually so in industry and business – usually explicit but sometimes implicit – especially where investment is to be made or resources are to be used in implementing the new course of action:

  1. What are the objectives to be achieved, and
  2. how will we be able to measure if we are on track.

1. A Falsifiable Hypothesis:

The “global warming” hypothesis is that humans are impacting global climate and specifically that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing – through direct and indirect effects – the global climate to warm. But this formulation is virtually impossible either to prove or to falsify. With the many hundreds – if not thousands – of parameters which impact the chaotic system which makes up our climate, it is almost impossible to either collect or generate data which can isolate the effects of just this one parameter.

The prevailing “belief” that this hypothesis is correct is based on being able to say that observed warming is not inconsistent with climate models which include the warming due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and that no better models exist. (The hiatus in temperature over the last 20 years is dismissed as being a “temporary” hiatus or due to some unknown effect – such as deep ocean take-up of heat – which is not included in the models). If no observation is permitted to falsify the hypothesis then this is merely a belief and a religion and not science.

However, the same global warming theory can easily be converted into a falsifiable hypothesis if it is formulated thus: “Increasing anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant warming effect on global climate”. This can then be subject to being proved false. The recent hiatus in global temperature then immediately leads to the conclusion that either

  1. the hypothesis is false, or
  2. the hypothesis must be modified to be
  3. “Increasing anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide may have a significant warming effect on global climate over long periods in excess of at least 50 years”

And then there is no longer any need for panic.

If the study of climate is ever to become science, the hypotheses will need to be revisited.

2. Conditions of Success

I am always somewhat perplexed that the global warming scare has led to the implementation of policies which – in not a single case – address the Conditions of Success. In no case of “decarbonisation” or carbon taxes or carbon credits or support for renewable energies is there any consideration of the measurements to be made to determine if the actions are having the desired effect.

It has been a blind rush into the support of solar and wind energy with no assessment of the increased electricity prices, the reduction of growth and the subsequent loss of jobs. In no country has there been a definition of the measurable results to be achieved along the way (except for measuring how much money was spent). Just the increase of the capacity of wind and solar power production has been taken to be a success though electricity prices have gone up sharply and no reduction of carbon dioxide concentration has been achieved. All the actions taken over the last 3 decades against the use of fossil fuels have had no impact whatsoever in reducing the rate of increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

In the US the unexpected advent of shale gas has led to a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions though the global emissions are higher than ever before. And yet the global temperature has been at a standstill for almost 2 decades!

Of course for politicians carbon taxes and the like have become merely a source of revenue where the scare of “global warming” is used as a label merely to prevent resentment against a new tax. These taxes are invariably decoupled from any effects on the changes to carbon dioxide concentration and on global temperature to be achieved.

All these “climate” policies which have produced no reduction of carbon-dioxide concentration or even a reduction in the growth rate and where global temperatures have also failed to increase now seem needlessly self-destructive.

“Climate change policies” will never be credible or of any value until the Conditions of Success for such policies are defined in advance of such policies being implemented.

Carbon Cycle still has many uncertainties

June 20, 2013

How much of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is due to the use of fossil fuels is not as certain as many would like to believe. The role of the oceans both in the emission and the absorption of carbon dioxide is far from being understood or quantified. Emissions due to fossil fuel combustion are of the same magnitude as just the error band surrounding the emissions from the oceans and  from the emissions due to transpiration. The primary sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the oceans and transpiration. The assumption that these emissions are in balance with the absorption by the oceans and plant life is just an assumption based on an assumed equilibrium which is far from certain. I posted a few weeks ago

…. The general assumption is that about 40% of man-made carbon dioxide shows up as this increase with the remainder being absorbed by the enhanced action of sinks.

SOURCES AND SINKS OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The justification for this conclusion is supported by measurements of the falling proportion of  13C  in the atmosphere which is taken to signal the appearance of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions. …… 

The correlation of changes in δ13C with ENSO events and the comparison with a simple model of a series of cascades suggest that the changes in δ13C in the atmosphere have little to do with the input of CO2 emissions from the continuous use of fossil fuels.

Even though the combustion of fossil fuels only contributes less than 4% of total carbon dioxide production (about 26Gt/year of 800+GT/year), it is usually assumed that the sinks available balance the natural sources and that the carbon dioxide concentration – without the effects of man – would be largely in equilibrium.  (Why carbon dioxide concentration should not vary naturally escapes me!). It seems rather illogical to me to claim that sinks can somehow distinguish the source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and preferentially choose to absorb natural emissions and reject anthropogenic emissions! Also, there is no sink where the absorption rate would not increase with concentration.

Carbon dioxide emission sources (GT CO2/year)

  • Transpiration 440
  • Release from oceans 330
  • Fossil fuel combustion 26
  • Changing land use 6
  • Volcanoes and weathering 1

Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere by about 15 GT CO2/ year. The accuracy of the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by transpiration and by the oceans is no better than about 2 – 3% and that error band (+/- 20GT/year)  is itself almost as large as the total amount of emissions from fossil fuels. ….. 

Two new papers – in completely different fields – highlight the uncertainty in carbon dioxide emissions from the oceans and from plant and animal life:

1. Interannual variability in sea surface temperature and fCO2 changes in the Cariaco Basin Y.M. Astor et al, Deep-Sea Res. II (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.01.002i

The Hockey SchtickA new paper published in Deep-Sea Research finds the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists that the ocean removes CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the authors, “At the [research] site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events.” The paper also notes, “Astor et al.(2005) observed the interactions between physical and biochemical parameters that lead to temporal [over time] variations in fCO2 [CO2 flux from the] sea, finding that even during periods of high production, the CO2 flux between the ocean and the atmosphere decreased but remained positive, i.e. CO2 escaped from the ocean to the atmosphere.” 

The paper corroborates prior work by SalbyHumlum et alFrölicher et alCho et alCalder et alFrancey et alAhlbeckPetterssonand others demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2. This new work confirms the primary source of atmospheric CO2 is out-gassing from the oceans, which is due to decreased solubility with increased temperature.

2. Michael S. Strickland, Dror Hawlena, Aspen Reese, Mark A. Bradford, and Oswald J. Schmitz. Trophic cascade alters ecosystem carbon exchangePNAS, 2013 DOI:10.1073/pnas.1305191110

EurekAlert: …. The study, conducted by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, comes out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It looks at the relationship between grasshoppers and spiders—herbivores and predators in the study’s food chain—and how it affects the movement of carbon through a grassland ecosystem. Carbon, the basic building block of all organic tissue, moves through the food chain at varying speeds depending on whether it’s being consumed or being stored in the bodies of plants. However, this pathway is seldom looked at in terms of specific animal responses like fear from predation. …… 

….. The study found that the presence of spiders drove up the rate of carbon uptake by the plants by about 1.4 times more than when just grasshoppers were present and by 1.2 more times than when no animals were present. It was also revealed that the pattern of carbon storage in the plants changed when both herbivores and carnivores were present. The grasshoppers apparently were afraid of being eaten by the spiders and consumed less plant matter when the predators were around. The grasshoppers also shifted towards eating more herbs instead of grass under fearful scenarios.

At the same time, the grasses stored more carbon in their roots in a response to being disturbed at low levels when both herbivores and carnivores were present. In cases where only herbivores were present, the plants stored less carbon overall, likely due to the more intense eating habits of the herbivores that put pressure on plants to reduce their storage and breathe out carbon more. These stress impacts, then, caused both the plants and the herbivores to change their behaviors and change the composition of their local environment.

Popeye approves of carbon dioxide

June 19, 2013

From the HockeySchtick comes news close to Popeye’s stomach (which is of course the way to his heart).

Popeye like CO2, like spinach

Spinach like CO2, Popeye like CO2

A new paper published in Advances in Space Research finds increased levels of CO2 promote spinach productivity and accumulation of vitamin C in spinach leaves. According to the authors, “High light and high CO2 independently one from the other, promoted spinach productivity, and the accumulation of ascorbic acid [vitamin C], while their interactive effect limited the accumulation of nitrate and oxalic acid in the spinach leaves.” Decreased oxalic acid is beneficial for human nutrition because oxalic acid blocks absorption of essential minerals.

Influence of the interaction between light intensity and CO2 concentration on productivity and quality of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) grown in fully controlled environment

Author(s): Simona Proietti , Stefano Moscatello , Gene A. Giacomelli , Alberto Battistelli

Abstract: The effects of the factorial combination of two light intensities (200 and 800 μmol m-2 s-1) and two CO2 concentrations (360 and 800 ppm) were studied on the productivity and nutritional quality of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) grown under controlled environment. After 6 weeks within a growth chamber, spinach plants were sampled and analyzed for productivity and quality. There were no statistically significant interactions between the effects of light and CO2 for all of the variables studied, except for the nitrate and oxalic acid content of the leaves.High light and high CO2 independently one from the other, promoted spinach productivity, and the accumulation of ascorbic acid [vitamin C], while their interactive effect limited the accumulation of nitrate and oxalic acid in the spinach leaves. The results highlight the importance of considering the effects of the interaction among environmental variables on maximizing production and the nutritional quality of the food when cultivating and modeling the plant response in controlled environment systems such as for bioregenerative life support.

Thank goodness for the Russians

June 12, 2013

It isn’t often that the Russian position is to be admired and even in this case they are doing – in my opinion – the right thing but for the wrong reasons. Anything which blocks the ridiculous UN Panel on Climate Change and its pointless and wasteful exercise in Bonn is welcome. Of course the Russians are only really concerned about the value of the Carbon credits they have stock-piled. Credits they received  for shutting down inefficient industries as being environmental “good guys” but where these were going to be shut down anyway.

This from AFP:

A key panel at UN climate talks in Bonn went into deep freeze on Tuesday as Russia ignored pleas to end a procedural protest, according to a webcast of the meeting and sources there. Supported by Belarus and Ukraine, Russia refused to let work start in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), an important technical committee in the climate talks, more than a week after the 12-day negotiations began.

Observers said if the three countries did not back down, the future of the entire UN process to fight greenhouse-gas emissions would be at risk. “It’s a most unfortunate situation,” said Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as delegates admitted the panel will most likely have achieved nothing by Friday’s close.

The Russians are incensed by what happened at the UNFCCC’s last big annual meeting, held in Doha, Qatar, last December. They complain they were ignored by the conference’s Qatari chairman, who gavelled through a deal that extended the Kyoto Protocol.

The decision at Doha hamstrung Moscow’s planned sale of 5.8 billion tonnes of carbon credits that Russia had amassed under the first round of the Kyoto Protocol.

It had gained these credits not through emissions reductions efforts, but after market pressure forced the closure of CO2-spewing factories following the fall of the Soviet Union.

……..

“If these three countries maintain their positions until 2015, they could wreck the entire process,” one observer warned AFP.

“Lull in warming even as greenhouse gases have accumulated at a record pace”

June 11, 2013

It’s old news but it is heretical and fundamentally undermines the fanciful notion that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. Plain denial of reality is no longer credible though the most orthodox of the warmists continue to maintain their beliefs. The real scientists just get back to work and try to understand what the models have missed and try to improve the models. The New York Times which has been one of the most ardent adherents to the orthodox line can no longer ignore reality.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace. …

… in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

Of course the NYT cannot admit it was wrong or that the heretics were right. Instead it commends the “practitioners of climate science” for being “puzzled”. It will take much more before the NYT will reveal that many of these “practitioners” are little more than “charlatans of climate science”

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

And then they make their most fundamental error when they write:

We certainly cannot conclude, as some people want to, that carbon dioxide is not actually a greenhouse gas. More than a century of research thoroughly disproves that claim.

But that is a fallacy. There is no direct evidence that carbon dioxide causes global warming. That is a conclusion reached because there was “no better explanation” given the assumption that man was causing global warming. This assumption came first as some kind of religious tenet and the rest has followed.

In fact the carbon cycle itself  is not very well understood as some would claim. We do not actually know how much is absorbed by the oceans. The number – and it is a very large number – used for that comes from equating carbon dioxide production and absorption in some assumed pre-industrial equilibrium which itself has never existed.

Instead of coming to the the most parsimonious explanation which is that the effect of carbon dioxide itself – let alone man-made carbon dioxide – on climate has been grossly exaggerated, the NYT repeats some of the most convoluted fantasies regarding the “lost heat”.

So the real question is where all that heat is going, if not to warm the surface. And a prime suspect is the deep ocean. Our measurements there are not good enough to confirm it absolutely, but a growing body of research suggests this may be an important part of the answer.

Exactly why the ocean would have started to draw down extra heat in recent years is a mystery, and one we badly need to understand. But the main ideas have to do with possible shifts in winds and currents that are causing surface heat to be pulled down faster than before.

The deep-ocean theory is one of a half-dozen explanations that have been proffered for the warming plateau. Perhaps the answer will turn out to be some mix of all of them. And in any event, computer forecasts of climate change suggest that pauses in warming lasting a couple of decades should not surprise us.

Perhaps the NYT would at least concede that the “science” is very far from being settled.

Murray Salby on carbon dioxide and temperature

June 11, 2013

Prof. Murray Salby’s presentation on 18th April 2013 in Hamburg explaining why carbon dioxide has little to do in causing global warming and in fact lags temperature both in the short term and in the long term.

 from NoTricksZone.

Models versus reality.

Back from UK’s coldest spring for 50 years

May 31, 2013

It was a grand holiday for 15 days in the UK.

The warmth of meeting old friends more than compensated for the lack of warmth in the weather. Every day we were in England, the weather we had left behind in Sweden was warmer by a couple of degrees. We had two  reasonably warm and – relatively – dry weekends but it was wet and chilly for the rest of the time.

And now I find that it was the coldest Spring (March – May) in the UK for 50 years.

The average temperature over the period came in at 6.0C, which is 1.8C, or nearly 25 per cent, lower than is typical for the time of year, according to the Met Office.

This makes it the fifth coldest spring since records began in 1910 and the chilliest for 51 years.

A Met Office spokesman said: “The colder than average conditions have been caused by difference patterns at certain times, but generally this season has seen frequent easterly and northerly winds which have brought cold air to the UK from polar and northern European regions.”

Rainfall was lower than normal in March and April but May has been wetter than usual, the Met Office added. As a result, spring has been slightly drier than average, but not as dry as the springs of 2010 and 2011.

So much for global warming! And so much for the utterly negligible impact of  carbon dioxide increase over the last 50 years!!

We stayed with friends during our vacation and everywhere we went we found a current of discontent about energy prices and the manner in which utility bills had increased. Utility bills are never popular at whatever level they may be pitched but the cost of energy is fundamental to our economies. To have a cost of electricity which is some 50 – 70% higher than it needs to be is irresponsible. I reckon that in W Europe the subsidies provided for non-commercial energy production has provided windfalls for about 500,000 owners/developers of wind farms and solar plants but has cost the jobs of about 15 million.

There is little doubt in my mind that it has been the idiot pursuit of “low carbon dioxide emissions” which is now contributing to the lack of growth and lack of jobs in Europe. The common-sense goal of pursuing the most economic sources of energy has given way to the pursuit of the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. To be politically correct but impoverished seems a poor – and rather immature – bargain to settle for.

So much for the idiots who have wasted three generations chasing the mirage of green political correctness but have allowed common sense to wither.

It is time to go back to basics.