Form 14c 2005: Fill & Download for Free

“What are the main arguments challenging all or parts of AGW/climate-change theories or dogma? Is the "97% consensus among scientists" valid?”I have seen arguments attempting to explain why we should be “skeptical” of AGW/ACC. All can be easily refuted, or in the case where fact is used, putting the fact in context helps to explain AGW/ACC. Here I will discuss some of these arguments.CO2 has a trivial warming effect.This argument falls apart rather quickly.Feldman et al 2012 measured the change in radiative forcing due to CO2 alone over the 2000 to 2010 time frame using the earth’s radiative spectrum.Feldman determined that there was over 0.2 W/m^2 increase in radiative forcing.Some quotes from Feldman…Feldman et al 2012 - “Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual- mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W/m^2 (ref. 2).”“The climate perturbation from this surface forcing will be larger than the observed effect, since it has been found that the water vapour feedback enhances greenhouse gas forcing at the surface by a factor of three28 and will increase, largely owing to thermodynamic constraints29.”“Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 2000 and 2010 have led to increases in clear-sky surface radiative forcing of over 0.2 W m^2 at mid- and high-latitudes.”It is important to note that Feldman says, “The climate perturbation from this surface forcing will be larger than the observed effect” because Feldman’s measurements do not account for water feedbacks. IPCC’s calculations for CO2 radiative forcing result in somewhat greater values, around 0.28 W/m^2, because feedbacks are included.The relationship between CO2 concentration and radiative forcing is not a linear relationship, but is logarithmic. IPCC’s equation is F = 5.35 * ln(CO2/CO2(ref)), where CO2(ref) can be any value, and is generally the value from around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution or 280 ppm.The following is a plot of radiative forcing using Feldman’s data and using IPCC’s equation. Feldman’s data results in a 4.0 multiplier, and IPCC uses 5.35. From the plot below, the difference in 2010 is about 0.4 W/m^2. This difference would be due to feedbacks.Contrast these values with the change in the sun’s output from 1860 to 2010. At the top of the atmosphere, and using a flat disk, the solar constant is 1360.8 W/m^2. From 1860 to 2010, this value has changed by 0.6 W/m^2. Recognize this is for a flat disk. Translating to a rotating sphere with an albedo, the solar constant is 1360.8 / 4 * 0.7 = 238.14 W/m^2. From 1860 to 2010, the change has been 0.6 / 4 * 0.7 = 0.1 W/m^2.CO2 forcing change, using Feldman and the above plot, is 1.3 W/m^2; solar output change is 0.1 W/m^2.Thus the assertion, “CO2 has a trivial warming effect.” Is shown to be incorrect.2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour.This is correct as far as it goes. Some additional information is needed for a complete understanding.CO2 is a strong contributor to the greenhouse effect; far greater than its relative concentration in the atmosphere.N2 and O2, which comprise about 99% of the atmosphere, contribute almost nothing to the greenhouse effect.CO2 has a significant absorption band in the middle of the earth’s radiation spectrum.CO2 has little dependence on temperature.H2O is very dependent on temperature.The earth’s approximate blackbody temperature is about 15° C. The blackbody temperature without an atmosphere (or simply without greenhouse gasses) would be about -18° C.H2O provides perhaps 60% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 contributes perhaps 20%, with other gasses contributing the rest. These numbers are only approximate because there is overlap in the absorption spectrums.Because H2O is very dependent on temperature, reducing temperature can significantly reduce the atmospheric concentration. This can be seen by looking at radiative spectrums in the arctic and comparing them with spectrums in the tropics.If CO2 concentration were reduced, the temperature would drop, causing H2O to leave the atmosphere, dropping the temperature further.. If all CO2 were removed, most H2O would leave the atmosphere, and the temperature would drop to close to that of the earth without an atmosphere. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/10Page63.pdfFinally, yes, H2O is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect, with CO2 being the second most. However, one must recognize that greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, CFCs) control the amount of water vapor by controlling the temperature. H2O concentrations simply follow the temperature.3) The “97% consensus” figure is misleading.Yes, this is misleading when 97% is taken in isolation. One must recognize what is being measured. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoaxAnd that is, “Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming.”And,“In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus papers, showing that with a variety of different approaches, we all found the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 90–100%."What one wants to know is how many experts in the climate science field understand AGW/ACC, not everyone with an opinion.4) The 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere.Let’s first parse out the assertions:The 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) confirms that CO2 has a small life-time.Because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 is in the atmosphere.First, what is the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere?The IPCC AR5 Report, page 96 places the CO2 half life at about 15 years or less, as the plot below indicates. The plot is for a 100 PgC pulse, or 370 PgCO2.http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf14C data from the aftermath of nuclear bomb tests place the CO2 half life at about 13 years. This data was measured at New Zealand.Addressing the the13C/12C (δ13C) ratio, some calculations were performed, and are contained in the table below. CO2 information from 1985 and 2005 were used. The expected change from adding fossil carbon is a more negative value for δ13C. From 1985 to 2005, 39.5 ppm more CO2 was added to the atmosphere. δ13C changed from -7.681 to -8.216. This change is expected if more fossil carbon were being added to the atmosphere. This change in value also indicates that not all fossil carbon is remaining in the atmosphere.I calculated the δ13C if all fossil carbon was remaining in the atmosphere, and I got -9.816.Initial δ13C: -7.681Final δ13C: -8.216All fossil carbon remains in atmosphere: -9.816These numbers indicate a substantial fraction of fossil carbon is remaining in the atmosphere, and not a “tiny percentage” as asserted.It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding as to how CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Actually 13 years is a long time, and a fraction of CO2 emitted from past years is in the atmosphere in the year being measured. The fraction from each past year must be summed to determine the amount in the measurement year.I did a (very) rough calculation of the amount of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere using world emissions, and the expected amount remaining in the atmosphere, using CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa.I did NOT include contributions from land use or any of the other contributors listed by the IPCC. I also assume natural processes are constant at 280 ppm (they are not, and vary somewhat).The following plot describes my results. As one can see, even with the limitations of my calculations, there is a very large percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere.Now, what defines a “small lifetime” for CO2? What should we compare it to? Well, since we are talking about the greenhouse effect, it makes sense to compare CO2 to other gasses that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Since water vapor provides the most greenhouse action, let’s use that.We can use the handy radioactive carbon data, 14C, from nuclear tests which provides a good estimate of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.The plot below shows 14C data. The red line is an exponential fit to the data and starts in year 1966. The half life of CO2 from this data is about 13 years.The half life for H2O is on the order of days, and the exponential is the orange line in the plot.A cursory look at the plot indicates that the CO2 half life is not “small” at all. In fact, when compared to H2O, CO2 half life is more than 400 times as long.Thus the assertions, “there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere” and “CO2 has a small lifetime” are falsified.5) CO2 behaves somewhat logarithmically and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the less warming each molecule will have.This is a statement of fact. I am not at all clear why this is used as an argument by “skeptics”. The statement heard everywhere that the temperature will increase by x amount for every doubling of CO2 concentration means the relationship is logarithmic. This relationship is used by all climate scientists and is coded into the GCMs.The relationship between CO2 concentration and radiative forcing is F = 5.35 * ln(CO2/CO2(ref)). This includes feedbacks. Feldman et al, mentioned above, measured the radiative forcing for CO2 in isolation. To achieve Feldman’s results, the forcing equation can be modified to F = 4.0 * ln(CO2/CO2(ref)).A plot of the equation including feedbacks is shown below.Note how the radiative forcing drops rapidly with decreasing concentration. If all CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses (CH4, CFCs)) were removed from the atmosphere, we would end up with a snowball earth.Next, note the area of the curve associated with the last hundred years or so. That is, the area between 280 ppm and 410 ppm. This is approximately 1.5 W/m^2, and is associated with an approximate one degree temperature change, which is what we have experienced to date.The next one degree change is projected to be when the CO2 concentration reaches about 600 ppm. So one degree for 130 ppm change, and another degree for 190 ppm change.6) The rate of warming is not unusual.Let’s explore this assertion.The plot below shows three reconstructions spanning the last 2000 years.The Roman Warm Period is apparent in the Ljungqvist data. The rate of cooling can be seen and takes a two hundred years to drop 0.4° C.The Medieval Warm Period rate of warming is 400 years for 0.4° C increase. The rate of cooling is 600 years for 0.6° C.Exiting the Little Ice Age, the rate of warming is 100 years for 0.3° C.The modern period spanning 1850 to present, or 150 years and has a warming of 1°C.It is worth noting that there are more rapid changes in the curves, but what is of interest is the long term trend. The rapid changes do not last very long.The table below summarizes the trends. The warming trend for the Modern Period is 0.67° C/century, which is by far the greatest trend in the table. The Little Ice Age warming trend comes in second at less than half the warming rate.Thus the assertion, “The rate of warming is not unusual”, is falsified.Now let’s take a closer look at the Modern Period using HADCRUT data. The plot below contains HADCRUT data smoothed with a 10-year moving average filter. The data is aligned such that the center of any one 10-year period is the value on the x-axis.Measuring the long term trend (I used 8 years) of the smoothed data above results in the plot below. Also included in the plot is the linear regression fit (red).From this plot one can see that the trend is never constant at a fixed rate, but rather, on average, the trend increases. That is, the temperature rises faster as time goes by. The present rate of increase is 1.8° C per century, which is greater than the observed temperature increase of about one degree C over the last century.There are also rapid variations in the trend with peaks every so often. Looking at the three dominant peaks at 1886, 1917, and 2000, one can see that even the peaks are increasing with time.7) Clouds could explain a portion of the assumed temperature increase between 1971 to 2009.This is expressed as a supposition and as such cannot be falsified. High level clouds are known to cause warming. Low level clouds are known to cause cooling. IPCC’s report places large uncertainties on the net effect of clouds. Time will tell.8) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity.This is expressed as a supposition and as such cannot be falsified.IPCC includes uncertainty ranges. In fact the range for temperature change is 1.5 to 4.0° C.The IPCC range is a compilation of many investigations.In fact the IPCC may be underestimating climate change.IPCC modeling uses different scenarios; RPC2.6, RPC4.5, RPC6.0 and RPC 8.5. Presently existing data shows we are on the RPC4.5 scenario, which is the middle of the road scenario.9) The IPCC claim that the long life-time for atmospheric CO2 is due to the Revelle Factor.This is fact, and experiments have shown this is so. I am unsure why this is considered to be a talking point with “skeptics”.The Revelle Factor basically describes the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 based on conditions such as temperature and alkalinity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelle_factor A consequence is the Revelle Factor differs depending on location.As such, any changes in the average global Revelle Factor are included in any measurement of CO2 lifetime. The “bomb spike” of 14C and subsequent decay described in 4) is because of the Revelle Factor. As such, trying to ascribe a different shape/result to the CO2 decay makes no sense. The shape/result IS because of the Revelle Factor including any changes to it.Another important point is that the Revelle Factor always regulates CO2 uptake, and thus determines the half life (lifetime) of CO2 for atmosphere/ocean processes.10) Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to lag temperature-changesThis is true…in the absence of some other process changing the CO2 concentration, e.g. humans.It amazes me that this assertion is still used as evidence against ACC/AGW. Making the assertion that CO2 can only lag temperature shows a lack of understanding the various processes involved and which are dominant at any one time.In the absence of humans, and in the instance of a large temperature change, CO2 will lag temperature and the lag will be significant; on the order of hundreds of years.Key is humans. Today we have CO2 levels skyrocketing, and not because of temperature. We have humans. There is no lag of hundreds of years. In fact, one would be hard pressed to see any lag. Actually, CO2 leads temperature by about 10 years. Key is humans.Next, look at the Vostok ice cores. Temperature changed by 10 degrees and CO2 concentration changed by 100 ppm. That’s 10 ppm for every degree. Today, CO2 concentration has changed by 130 ppm and temperature has changed by one degree. That’s 130 ppm for every degree.In fact some of the temperature change recorded in the Vostok ice cores can be explained by the CO2 change. Per the IPCC equation, radiative forcing is F = 5.35 * ln(CO2/CO2(ref)). Here CO2(ref) is 200 ppm and CO2 is 300 ppm. 5.35 * ln(300/200) = 2.2 W/m^2. Radiative forcing is linearly proportional to temperature. Using a factor of 0.8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing) the expected temperature change is 2.2 * 0.8 = 1.76° C. Hence, 1.76 C of the Vostok ice core temperature change can be attributed to CO2 change.Pointing to the past does not explain the present.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated through a number of mechanisms. The earliest were tree rings from bristlecone pines, by Ferguson in the mid 1970s. This permitted radiocarbon dating to be calibrated back to more than 7000 years before the present.More recent tree ring chronologies has allowed 14C dating to be calibrated back to more than 13,000 years before the present.Combining these with the annual varves in glacial lakes, and with the annual growth rings in corals, cross correlated with U-Th isochron dates, 14C has been calibrated back to more than 50,000 years before the present.Below are some references. There are many papers on radiocarbon calibration. Search on Google Scholar.ReferencesBard, E., Arnold, M., Hamelin, B., Tisnerat-Laborde, N. and Cabioch, G., 1998. Radiocarbon calibration by means of mass spectrometric 230 Th/234 U and 14 C ages of corals: an updated database including samples from Barbados, Mururoa and Tahiti. Radiocarbon, 40(3), pp.1085-1092.Damon, P.E., Ferguson, C.W., Long, A. and Wallick, E.I., 1974. Dendrochronologic calibration of the radiocarbon time scale. American Antiquity, 39(2Part1), pp.350-366.Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlock, R.A., Chiu, T.C., Cao, L., Kaplan, A., Guilderson, T.P., Fairbanks, T.W., Bloom, A.L., Grootes, P.M. and Nadeau, M.J., 2005. Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24(16-17), pp.1781-1796.Kitagawa, H. and Van Der Plicht, J., 1997. A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14 C calibration curve. Radiocarbon, 40(1), pp.505-515.Stuiver, M., Kromer, B., Becker, B. and Ferguson, C.W., 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. Radiocarbon, 28(2B), pp.969-979.Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L. and Friedrich, M., 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51(4), pp.1111-1150.

Vulcanoes emitt 1 / 130 C02 of what humans emitt.Does a Single Volcanic Eruption Release as Much CO2 As All of Humanity Has to Date?https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdfIn order for underwater volcanic activity to warm the ocean, they would have to be erupting on orders of magnitude larger than observed. This also would be affecting the acidification of the ocean, which we know is derived from human FF usages. Per Gerlach 2011:"To create more than 35 gigatons per year of volcanic CO2 would require that magma across the globe be produced in amounts exceeding 850 cubic kilometers per year, even for magma hypothetically containing 1.5-weight-percent CO2. It is implausible that this much magma production—more than 40 times the annual midocean ridge magma supply—is going unnoticed, on land or beneath the sea. Besides, the release of more than 35 gigatons per year of volcanic CO2 into the ocean would overwhelm the observed acid-buffering capacity of seawater and contradict seawater’s role as a major sink for atmospheric CO2 [Walker, 1983; Khatiwala et al., 2009]. In short, the belief that volcanic CO2exceeds anthropogenic CO2 implies either unbelievable volumes of magma production or unbelievable concentrations of magmatic CO2. These dilemmas and their related problematic implications corroborate the observational evidence that volcanoes emit far less CO2 than human activities.It is informative to calculate volcanic analogs that elucidate the size of humanity’s carbon footprint by scaling up volcanism to the hypothetical intensity required to generate CO2 emissions at anthropogenic levels. For example, using the 2010 ACM factor of 135 (Figure 1) to scale up features of present-day volcanism, Kilauea volcano scales up to the equivalent of 135 Kilauea volcanoes; scaling up all active subaerial volcanoes evokes a landscape with the equivalent of about 9500 active present-day volcanoes [Siebert et al., 2010]. Similarly, the seafloor mid-ocean ridge system scales up to the equivalent of 135 such systems. Of particular interest, though, is the roughly 4 cubic kilometers per year of current global volcanic magma production [Crisp, 1984], which would scale up to about 540 cubic kilometers per year. This significantly exceeds the estimated average magma output rates of continental flood basalt volcanism [Self, 2010], which range from about 10 to 100 cubic kilometers per year. Thus, annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may already exceed the annual CO2 emissions of several continental flood basalt eruptions, consistent with the findings of Self et al. [2005]."http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.phphttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/abstracthttps://web.archive.org/web/20130125003028/http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdfhttp://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdfhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2932#110799All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.HOW DO WE KNOW WHATS OUR CO2?The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era.The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. Its the carbons "DNA". Its unique.Here’s how scientists know.The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter” (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value). For example, carbon from ocean is the standard with a value of “0” while carbon from fossil fuels ranges from -20 to -32. While atmospheric carbon has an average value of -5 to -9, it is becoming “lighter” over time as carbon from fossil fuels become more abundant in the atmosphere.The Suess Effect is a term which has come to signify the decrease in 14C in atmospheric CO2 owing to admixture of CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. This term is here extended, as a concept, to the shifts in isotopic ratio of both 13C and 14C in any reservoir of the carbon cycle owing to anthropogenic activities.The Suess effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon interrelationsChanges in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components (Francey et al., 1995).http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/25_Partition.pdfAdditional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdfHow do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Wei%20et%20al.%202009.pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GC000264/full