Quantcast

The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide as A Driver of Global Warming

Ken 2012/12/18 19:13:13
The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide as A Driver of Global Warming
(Abstract Only - Entire article available at http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html )


by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Revised 11/16/2009

ABSTRACT


Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rise out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millenium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.


Throughout the past 420 thousand years, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record* of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with,
and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in
water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding
that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon has neither
caused nor amplified global temperature increases.
(Emphasis added.) Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. (Emphasis added.) Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.


- - - - + - - - -

* Vostok station is the location in Antarctica where, as of 2003, the deepest ice core had been drilled. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial
cycles.

A major part of Al Gore's deception in the "Power Point" presentation in his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was an enormous graph showing the alleged correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 and increased global
temperatures. What was missing on the graph was an accurate scale
which would have shown the audiences that increased CO2 actually lags
increased atmospheric temperature by approximately a thousand years, for the reasons explained in
the abstract of Dr. Glassman's article - CO2 is more soluble in cold
water (just open a warm beer to prove this fact to yourself!), so as the atmosphere warms, the oceans also warm,
albeit at a slower pace because of the thermal inertia of the water,
causing the oceans to exhaust CO2 into the atmosphere. It is for this
reason that during every interglacial period evidenced by the Vostok ice-core record, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere, though lagging the increase in temperature by around a thousand years.


Further, the Global Warming Catastrophists have had to hypothesize a positive feedback loop between additional atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature to get the results they actually want, a catastrophic increase in global climate. A positive feedback loop
means that with more CO2 it gets warmer, causing more CO2, causing it to get warmer, ad infinitum. Even though Vostok ice-core data indicate that conditions in the past were present from natural causes, no "runaway event" such as the Catastrophists are now predicting has ever occurred. Therefore the Catastrophists' theory of a positive feedback loop between increased CO2 and atmospheric temperature must be wrong.
This is something I have been saying all along. Any engineer knows
that a system with positive feedback, whether mechanical or electrical, is inherently unstable and soon runs itself into a "runaway condition." Inasmuch as Earth's climate has been remarkably stable and predictable (over the long term) for millennia there could not possibly be a positive feedback loop between increased atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.





You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Broken 2013/10/20 19:25:18
    Broken
    +1
    And you expect Liberals to have a real intellectual discussion? They only ant to PRETEND to have intelligence. Intellectual honesty would mean a willingness to admit you were wrong and change your position. Libs will never do that.
  • Sal Monella ~PWCM~JL 2013/10/20 19:16:27
  • thefatguy 2013/02/01 18:16:51
    thefatguy
    +1
    The Globull Warming hoax will go down in infamy alongside the Piltdown Man and the Easter Bunny.
  • Ken thefatguy 2013/02/01 18:32:23
    Ken
    +1
    Here are some people who agree with you:

    "Warming fears are the 'worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.'” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “I am a skeptic. . . Global Warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. . . As a scientist I remain skeptical. . . The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” (Emphasis added.) Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
  • concerned2 2013/01/30 23:56:14
    concerned2
    +1
    I actually already heard of this - a long time ago. I wonder if anyone is going to pay any attention though? Probably not - after all, the cool kids all believe in global warming from those big ugly nasty SUV's....
  • Ken concerned2 2013/01/31 02:44:31
    Ken
    Yet it hasn't warmed in 16 years, since 1997, and their computer programs can't explain it.
  • Warren ... concerned2 2013/01/31 17:18:14
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Glassman is not a real scientist and rocketscientistsjournal.com is not a real journal. These are charlatans whose only purpose is to dupe gullible people on the internet with fake pseudoscience. Be careful here.
  • gallopi... Warren ... 2013/05/05 14:57:35
    gallopingcamel
    +3
    There is a lot of duping going on by folks like Thomas F. Stocker:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordp...
  • Ken gallopi... 2013/05/05 16:41:33 (edited)
    Ken
    Thanks, excellent article. It points out that if CO2 were as powerful a gas as the climate scientists behind AGW claim it is, the temperature increase since 1850 would have been an order of magnitude greater that it has actually been. The article also points out that increases in atmospheric CO2 have lagged temperature increases by around 500 years (I've seen other papers that suggest the lag is 800-1000 years).

    "The fluctuation of CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years were caused by fluctuations in ocean temperatures. The solubility of CO2 in sea water is a function of temperature. This hypothesis also accounts for the 500 year delay between rising temperature and rising CO2 concentration.

    "That still leaves the question of what caused the temperature changes associated with the last eight glacial cycles. Many people think that Milankovich cycles are responsible for the recent ice ages but the mathematics is a little shaky."

    Here is more on the effect of the Milankovitch cycles which have been recently confirmed:
    "
    The new work by Drysdale et al. claims that obliquity, not precession, is the proximate cause of glacial terminations. Moreover, based on a detailed study of the last two terminations (T-I and T-II), it was found that glacials can span multiple obliquity...





    Thanks, excellent article. It points out that if CO2 were as powerful a gas as the climate scientists behind AGW claim it is, the temperature increase since 1850 would have been an order of magnitude greater that it has actually been. The article also points out that increases in atmospheric CO2 have lagged temperature increases by around 500 years (I've seen other papers that suggest the lag is 800-1000 years).

    "The fluctuation of CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years were caused by fluctuations in ocean temperatures. The solubility of CO2 in sea water is a function of temperature. This hypothesis also accounts for the 500 year delay between rising temperature and rising CO2 concentration.

    "That still leaves the question of what caused the temperature changes associated with the last eight glacial cycles. Many people think that Milankovich cycles are responsible for the recent ice ages but the mathematics is a little shaky."

    Here is more on the effect of the Milankovitch cycles which have been recently confirmed:
    "
    The new work by Drysdale et al. claims that obliquity, not precession, is the proximate cause of glacial terminations. Moreover, based on a detailed study of the last two terminations (T-I and T-II), it was found that glacials can span multiple obliquity cycles. The researchers make the case for obliquity as the forcing mechanism:

    "Based on our results, both T-I and T-II commence at the same phase of obliquity and the period between them is exactly equivalent to three obliquity cycles (~123 ky). Obliquity is clearly very important during the Early Pleistocene, and recently a compelling argument has been advanced that Late Pleistocene terminations are also forced by obliquity, but that they bridge multiple obliquity cycles. Under this model, predominantly obliquity-driven total summer energy is considered more important in forcing terminations than the classical precession-based peak summer insolation model, primarily because the length of summer decreases as the Earth moves closer to the sun.

    "Timing of the Termination II was established by matching a uranium–thorium (U–Th) chronology derived from a high-resolution speleothem δ18O time series to the T-II marine sediment record from the Iberian margin in the northeast Atlantic Ocean. A speleothem is a secondary mineral deposit formed in caves. The figure below, taken from the paper's preprint online, compares timing, insolation and obliquity data for the two terminations."

    http://theresilientearth.com/...
    (more)
  • gallopi... Ken 2013/10/20 14:05:34
    gallopingcamel
    Thanks for that link discussing the Milankovitch cycles which has been added to my bookmarks.

    It seems highly plausible that Milankovitch cycles were the prime cause of the last 8 glacial cycles. If the mathmatics were a little better we might have a clue about the timing of the next glaciation.
  • PetrifiedElephantPoop 2013/01/30 23:20:05
    PetrifiedElephantPoop
    +1
    97% of scientists versus kooks....I rest my case.
  • Ken Petrifi... 2013/01/31 02:47:16
    Ken
    You haven't stated a case, and it isn't 97% of the scientists. Besides, science has never been decided by "consensus" -- if it were we'd all still believe the Earth is flat. It isn't the quantity of scientists, it's the quality -- and those pushing global warming have been caught in some very big lies. It hasn't warmed in 16 years and their "computer models" can't explain it. http://www.americanthinker.co...
  • Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2013/01/30 20:07:33
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    This is a fake journal, and the author's opinions display his own ignorance. CO2 and temperature are feedbacks. Any one with the slightest understanding of systems theory would know that positive feedbacks do not always result in runaway conditions. He assumes the readers of the fake article are too dumb to know better.
  • Warren ... Warren ... 2013/01/30 20:11:04
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    For example, the gain in a feedback loop can be positive, but less than 1 in which case the system is convergent. Runaway feedback means than the gain is positive and > 1 in which case the system is divergent. Negative feedback loops always converge over time.
  • Warren ... Warren ... 2013/01/30 20:13:28
  • Ken Warren ... 2013/01/31 02:52:44
    Ken
    Just like every left-winger, instead of having a discussion you resort to name-calling and ridicule. If anyone is to be ridiculed, it's people like Michael Mann who cherry-picked data to "get rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and come up with the phony hockey-stick, and it's "scientists" like Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia CRU (remember "climategate" and the smoking-gun emails?)
    Even many of those "peer-reviewed" pseudo-scientists you apparently revere have admitted that there's been no warming in over a decade and their computer models can't explain it. http://www.americanthinker.co...

    Insofar as Dr. Glassman's journal being "phony," it isn't, and the fact is that CO2 concentrations over geological history have been several orders higher than they are today and the climate never had a runaway event such as they are now predicting.
  • Warren ... Ken 2013/01/31 17:07:52
  • Warren ... Ken 2013/01/31 17:08:28
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    You are a sheep. Learn to think for yourself.
  • Ken Warren ... 2013/02/01 02:27:10
    Ken
    He didn't say that there is no correlation between atmospheric temperature and the concentration of CO2 - he correctly stated the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has historically lagged increases in temperature, indicating that increased CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of atmospheric warming.

    “Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” http://news.ku.dk/all_news/20...

    Average temperatures during the Mid-Late Carboniferous period were about 12° C (54° F), comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today. Cooling to that temperature occurred despite the fact that CO2 concentrations during the Early Carboniferous period were approximately 1500 ppm, nearly four times what they are today (~391 ppm).

    You may disagree with Dr. Glassman's opinions but that doesn't make his journal "fake," and his degree in applied physics relates directly to the issues involved in climatology.
  • Warren ... Ken 2013/02/01 16:25:40
  • Ken Warren ... 2013/02/01 17:31:52 (edited)
  • Warren ... Ken 2013/02/01 18:26:11
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Please stick to the topic.

    An amplifier, by definition, has positive feedback with gain greater than 1 and will become unstable if the output (speaker) is fed back into the microphone. Anybody who has ever heard the awful noise of putting a microphone next to a speaker know this for a fact.

    On the other hand, if you have positive feedback with gain less than one, the system parameters converge to a finite value.

    Here is a good explanation:

    http://english.turkcebilgi.co...

    Consider a linear amplifier with linear feedback. As long as the loop gain, i.e. the forward gain multiplied with the feedback gain, is lower than 1 the result is a stable (convergent) output. This is of course always true for a negative feedback but also for lower positive feedbacks. In electronic amplifiers the normal case is that the forward gain is quite high and the amplifier becomes unstable for quite small positive feedbacks.

    In the real world, positive feedback loops are always controlled eventually by negative feedback of some sort; a microphone will break or a beaker will crack or a nuclear accident will result in meltdown. This outcome need not be so dramatic, however. The variety of negative feedback controls can modulate the effect. Embedded in a system of feedback loops, a positive f...
    Please stick to the topic.

    An amplifier, by definition, has positive feedback with gain greater than 1 and will become unstable if the output (speaker) is fed back into the microphone. Anybody who has ever heard the awful noise of putting a microphone next to a speaker know this for a fact.

    On the other hand, if you have positive feedback with gain less than one, the system parameters converge to a finite value.

    Here is a good explanation:

    http://english.turkcebilgi.co...

    Consider a linear amplifier with linear feedback. As long as the loop gain, i.e. the forward gain multiplied with the feedback gain, is lower than 1 the result is a stable (convergent) output. This is of course always true for a negative feedback but also for lower positive feedbacks. In electronic amplifiers the normal case is that the forward gain is quite high and the amplifier becomes unstable for quite small positive feedbacks.

    In the real world, positive feedback loops are always controlled eventually by negative feedback of some sort; a microphone will break or a beaker will crack or a nuclear accident will result in meltdown. This outcome need not be so dramatic, however. The variety of negative feedback controls can modulate the effect. Embedded in a system of feedback loops, a positive feedback does not necessarily imply a runaway process. Combined with other processes, it may just have an amplifying effect. An example of this is the role of water vapour in amplifying global warming; higher global temperatures lead to increased water vapour in the atmosphere, which pushes up temperatures further, and so on, but the overall effect is that of a convergent series, amplifying the original temperature rise by a relatively constant factor. The limiting control is that water vapour does not depend solely upon temperature. Water cycles in and out of the atmosphere for a variety of reasons.
    (more)
  • JonDeniro 2013/01/30 15:45:09
    JonDeniro
    +1
    Hasn't experience taught you that most people will never let facts get in the way of what they choose to believe?
  • Ken JonDeniro 2013/01/30 18:39:42
    Ken
    +1
    The press certainly won't, as they are very selective on what they print on the subject. For example, how many news stories have you heard or read on the fact that there's been no warming since 1997?
  • stevmackey 2013/01/30 12:52:21
    stevmackey
    +1
    We get oxygen from plants because they inhale carbon dioxide. We would not be alive without it. We feed the plants by breathing it out.
  • Ken stevmackey 2013/01/30 18:42:04
    Ken
    All true, and the professor who Gore called his "mentor" on the CO2 issue, the late Roger Revelle, pointed out that one of the consequences of more CO2 would be better crops to feed those who are now starving, as well as more land brought under cultivation. The Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were as warm or warmer than they were in the late 20th century, was a time of great progress in commerce and the arts.
  • Gregaj7 2013/01/30 02:39:13
    Gregaj7
    +1
    Way over my head. I agree that "Global Warming" is totally bogus/phony.
  • johnc 2013/01/30 01:35:19
    johnc
    +2
    bottom line on all this mmgw , has nothing to do with the earth has everything to do with money and power.
  • Ken johnc 2013/01/30 02:20:20
    Ken
    +2
    Absolutely - at last count Al Gore was worth over $250 million!!!
  • johnc Ken 2013/01/30 13:58:33
    johnc
    +1
    yep follow the money, check out the net worth of those that scammed Obie at solyndra. not bad, not bad at all
  • Ken johnc 2013/01/30 18:43:14
    Ken
    +1
    Obie wasn't the one who was scammed, though - he knew exactly what he was doing when he used taxpayers' money as payback to campaign contributors.
  • johnc Ken 2013/01/30 18:52:23
    johnc
    +1
    isn't it sad? or just plain discusting?
  • Ken johnc 2013/01/30 18:54:19
  • Always Right 2013/01/30 01:28:39
    Always Right
    +2
    The Global Climate Change hoax is a mechanism to bilk the world out trillions of dollars!
  • redhorse29 2012/12/19 23:18:08
    redhorse29
    I am not an expert but do agree with this finding. Cannot authenticate it position paper only that I agree.
  • Icarus 2012/12/18 19:58:51
    Icarus
    Unphysical nonsense and you know it.
  • Ken Icarus 2012/12/18 21:08:58
    Ken
    +2
    I know no such thing, quite the opposite. I know how ground temperatures in urban 'heat islands' (which were once rural areas) are cited for increasing temperatures while satellite measurements which are much more accurate are ignored; I know how tree-ring data was "cherry-picked" to produce a graph that "got rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and purported to "prove" that the late 20th century was the warmest time in a millennia (it wasn't even close!); and I also know that even many advocates of man-made "climate change" are now admitting that there has been no warming for over 15 years.
  • concerned2 Icarus 2013/01/30 23:57:53
    concerned2
    +1
    "unphysical"?
  • Icarus concerned2 2013/01/31 07:45:45 (edited)
    Icarus
    Yes, meaning 'not physically possible'. The part where it says "Notwithstanding
    that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon has neither
    caused nor amplified global temperature increases" is self-contradictory. A change in a greenhouse gas by definition causes change in global temperature - that's the whole point of calling it a greenhouse gas.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 09:20:13

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals