Re: Polar CO2
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:06:25 -0500: Hi, [snip] >What is the uncertainty in these figures? >Harry [snip] I have no idea. However at least one of them applies to only one specific measurement station. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:52:34 -0500: Hi, [snip] > > >-Original Message- >From: Robin van Spaandonk > >I tried to show that even an exponential curve doesn't appear to >be rising fast enough, so yes I think we are up the proverbial >creek without a paddle. > > ><><><><><><> > >And you haven't even considered the non-linear rise in methane due to >the melting of the permafrost in the Russian tundra. Indeed. BTW as Horace previously suggested, atmospheric oxidation of the methane might be the source of the increased CO2 measurement. However that is hardly comforting. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
On Mar 18, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: I tried to show that even an exponential curve doesn't appear to be rising fast enough, so yes I think we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Well, lets just hope the numbers are either highly local, or just plain wrong. Meanwhile, I'm off to get some personal things done. Bye for now. Horace Heffner
Re: Polar CO2
What is the uncertainty in these figures? Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: Robin van Spaandonk > > I tried to show that even an exponential curve doesn't appear to > be rising fast enough, so yes I think we are up the proverbial > creek without a paddle. > > > <><><><><><> > > And you haven't even considered the non-linear rise in methane due to > the melting of the permafrost in the Russian tundra. > > T > ___ > Try the New Netscape Mail Today! > Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List > http://mail.netscape.com >
Re: Polar CO2
-Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk I tried to show that even an exponential curve doesn't appear to be rising fast enough, so yes I think we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. <><><><><><> And you haven't even considered the non-linear rise in methane due to the melting of the permafrost in the Russian tundra. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Polar CO2
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:21:17 -0900: Hi, [snip] >Given a 30 percent drop in the Atlantic conveyor belt flow rate in 12 >years: > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1898493,00.html > >it may be that there is a powerful but not yet understood biological >feedback occurring in the ocean due to a reduced nutrient flow from >the depths caused by the conveyor belt shutdown. There are probably lots of them, but I suspect that simple chemical dissolution of CO2 in water outweighs all of them. (It has to dissolve in the water before they can make use of it). According to Wiki, humanity puts about 22E9 tons of CO2 into the air every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming), which is a rate of increase of about 2.5 ppm / yr. However this assumes that the CO2 is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and it may be more concentrated near the ground because it's heavier than air. It also takes no account of the amount removed by photosynthesis, and other processes. However if the rate of increase of 2.7 ppm/yr previously mentioned were to apply to the whole planet, then we would have to seriously consider the possibility that existing carbon sinks are becoming sources iso sinks, i.e. that they are releasing CO2 iso sequestering it. At least some of our 2.5 is being removed by photosynthesis, and yet the increase is larger than everything we throw in, which would mean that there would have to be a major new non-anthropogenic source (or Wiki is ignoring the clearing/burning of tropical forests?)! I would look to the solubility of CO2 in the oceans as the most likely reason for this. As the average water temperature rises, we may find that CO2 which had already dissolved in the past, is now being released. This would result in a huge positive feedback cycle and rapid warming. Not to mention the additional feedback resulting from the increase in water vapor. (As the air temperature rises, so does the maximum possible partial vapor pressure of water - which is why the tropics are humid and the poles dry). >Polar fresh water >runoff is suggested to be the cause of the conveyor belt slowdown. >The conveyor belt is driven by salinity density changes, and >injection of fresh water in the polar regions disrupts the cycle. >The salinity changes, nutrient changes, and thermal changes brought >about by the slowdown may be affecting both the location of and >population of carbon sequestering organisms, and the carbon >sequestration rate in general. A sudden population change would >occur more like a step function than a logarithmic function. > >"The results, published today in Nature, show that the outward flow >of the Gulf Stream has not changed, but the strength of the cold >water returning from the Arctic has fallen by 30 per cent since 1992. >Over the same period, the flow of warm water branching off towards >Africa has increased by 30 per cent. This suggests that the warm >waters are being diverted away from Europe." Which makes sense, if the flow past Europe were previously being "sucked" North by the falling saline water in the arctic. > >A sudden population change could cause sudden onset long term linear >or non-linear effects. Given the large number of feedback cycles >involved Yes, at least one for every species on Earth, which means 10's of millions of them. Hence this approach to modeling is not feasible. >a non-linear and even exponential parameter change seems >likely but we probably will have to wait until it is too late to find >out. If we ever do. > >Maybe you have a specific underlying model in mind to explain the >regime change Robin? I have already expressed my best guess here above, i.e. that the oceans have changed from being a carbon sink to a carbon source, and that that has probably happened within the last decade. (BTW an increase in sub-marine volcanic activity would also hasten this process). >Attempting curve fitting for extrapolation into >the future is sometimes a lot more meaningful if there is an >underlying physical model to justify the curve family. However, in >this case it looks like there has been an abrupt regime change of >some kind, and we don't even know what family of curve to apply. I tried to show that even an exponential curve doesn't appear to be rising fast enough, so yes I think we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
Given a 30 percent drop in the Atlantic conveyor belt flow rate in 12 years: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1898493,00.html it may be that there is a powerful but not yet understood biological feedback occurring in the ocean due to a reduced nutrient flow from the depths caused by the conveyor belt shutdown. Polar fresh water runoff is suggested to be the cause of the conveyor belt slowdown. The conveyor belt is driven by salinity density changes, and injection of fresh water in the polar regions disrupts the cycle. The salinity changes, nutrient changes, and thermal changes brought about by the slowdown may be affecting both the location of and population of carbon sequestering organisms, and the carbon sequestration rate in general. A sudden population change would occur more like a step function than a logarithmic function. "The results, published today in Nature, show that the outward flow of the Gulf Stream has not changed, but the strength of the cold water returning from the Arctic has fallen by 30 per cent since 1992. Over the same period, the flow of warm water branching off towards Africa has increased by 30 per cent. This suggests that the warm waters are being diverted away from Europe." A sudden population change could cause sudden onset long term linear or non-linear effects. Given the large number of feedback cycles involved a non-linear and even exponential parameter change seems likely but we probably will have to wait until it is too late to find out. Maybe you have a specific underlying model in mind to explain the regime change Robin? Attempting curve fitting for extrapolation into the future is sometimes a lot more meaningful if there is an underlying physical model to justify the curve family. However, in this case it looks like there has been an abrupt regime change of some kind, and we don't even know what family of curve to apply. Horace Heffner
Re: Polar CO2
On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: (BTW krill are crustaceans, so they should be creating CO2, not consuming it). Check out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206230630.htm I mentioned krill because I think I read about an unexplained krill population drop somewhere. If the krill's food, phytoplankton, are dying off, then we are in deep kim chee. Horace Heffner
Re: Polar CO2
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:15:08 -0900: Hi, [snip] >If it is indeed true then I could not agree more that it is >catastrophic. I think independent confirmation is badly needed, not >just at Mount Zeppelin but all over the polar regions. Too bad NASA >has been canceling earth science missions. > Indeed. > >> >> An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the >> change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). > > >If the data is correct then I think that implies that a stepwise >increase is occurring. An exponential model does not apply to a >stepwise increase. Assuming the numbers are correct, that means some >threshold has been crossed and there is an entirely new source of >CO2. I agree. >Maybe methane oxidizes much faster than the rate implied by a >12 year half-life. Maybe the ocean warming is somehow releasing CO2 CO2 dissolves better in cold water than in warm water. >- or failing to sequester it due to massive krill death, etc. The >numbers are very hard to believe, but making the effort at >verification is obviously of great importance. Another possibility is that a slow down in the "conveyor" may be leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere (because CO2 would saturate surface water, then not be removed), so that our contribution accumulates faster. (BTW krill are crustaceans, so they should be creating CO2, not consuming it). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
On Mar 17, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:03:49 -0900: Hi, [snip] Polar carbon dioxide increasing at surprising rate. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1729255,00.html "In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm." Horace Heffner This is actually catastrophic. If it is indeed true then I could not agree more that it is catastrophic. I think independent confirmation is badly needed, not just at Mount Zeppelin but all over the polar regions. Too bad NASA has been canceling earth science missions. An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). If the data is correct then I think that implies that a stepwise increase is occurring. An exponential model does not apply to a stepwise increase. Assuming the numbers are correct, that means some threshold has been crossed and there is an entirely new source of CO2. Maybe methane oxidizes much faster than the rate implied by a 12 year half-life. Maybe the ocean warming is somehow releasing CO2 - or failing to sequester it due to massive krill death, etc. The numbers are very hard to believe, but making the effort at verification is obviously of great importance. I see the article says: "The increase is also seen at other stations, but our Zeppelin data show the strongest increase." This leaves the possibility it is a fairly localized phenomenon, though if a stepwise regime change can occur there it possibly can occur everywhere in the arctic. Horace please correct any egregious errors. Not my job mann! I just work here. That's a management function. 8^) Horace Heffner
Re: Polar CO2
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:03:49 -0900: Hi, [snip] >Polar carbon dioxide increasing at surprising rate. See: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1729255,00.html > >"In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 >part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. >Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have >discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm." > >Horace Heffner This is actually catastrophic. An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). Or more accurately if one uses the formula:- N = N0 x exp(t/T) then the first derivative is (N0/T) x exp(t/T) and the second derivative is (N0/T^2) x exp(t/T). One can determine T either by dividing the base formula by the first derivative, or by dividing the first derivative by the second derivative. If the current level is 380 ppm, and the current growth rate (i.e. the first derivative) is 2.7 ppm/yr, and this was 1 ppm/yr in 1990, then the second derivative ~= (2.7-1)/(2006-1990) = 0.106 ppm/yr^2. (Since this is a linear calculation based on a 16 year time difference, the actual current value is likely to be higher). The first method of determining T yields T = 380 ppm /(2.7 ppm/yr) = 140 y. The second method yields T = (2.7 ppm/yr)/ (0.106 ppm/yr^2) = 25.5 yr. Basically this means that the curve has recently been getting steeper more rapidly than the first method would indicate (the first method would yield a second derivative of 380/140^2 = 0.02 ppm/yr^2). The second method yields an acceleration that is 5 times larger. The implication is that even the second method yields a T that is too large. Yet even if we assume this second T (25.5 yr) is correct, it means we would hit the 500 ppm "tipping point" in 7 years time. We should therefore expect to hit it sooner. Horace please correct any egregious errors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Polar CO2
Polar carbon dioxide increasing at surprising rate. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1729255,00.html "In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm." Horace Heffner
