If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Blogs)   Good news: The climate "hockey stick" is a misnomer. Bad news: It should actually be the climate "reaper scythe." EVERYBODY PANIC   (scienceblogs.com) divider line 221
    More: Scary, hockey sticks, Grim Reaper, misnomer, climate  
•       •       •

4267 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2013 at 1:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 03:39:17 AM  

Baryogenesis:

We can't just say this one paper is right. It's not going to glow a beautiful white light. You can't just look at it and know. It would need to be confirmed/replicated. That's what these references to the body of literature are about. The basic idea of human caused global warming is correct because it is continually confirmed by more and more papers.

What if the data is not available to be confirmed/replicated?
 
2013-03-25 04:03:55 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part. I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)

Well, I, for one, am enjoying it...  One further bit.  In discussing averages, there are also some highly aberrant methodologies being used in climatology outside of science.  Specifically, the IPCC is doing some manipulations which I find I cannot call "questionable science" no matter HOW far I stretch that definition.  When the IPCC calculates the effects of a release of carbon dioxide, one of the important factors is how long the carbon dioxide will stay in the air.  Obviously, if it were to be pulled out of the air the same day, it would not be an issue, and if it were to stay forever in the air, carbon dioxide would be much more important than it is.

So, various studies have estimated how long the average carbon dioxide molecule will stay in the air.  Now, I am not speaking of how accurate any study, or group of studies is...  but, here are the studies listed by the IPCC as having comprised their average number, and the value they used, the latter in red:


i54.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-25 05:50:26 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: We can't just say this one paper is right. It's not going to glow a beautiful white light. You can't just look at it and know. It would need to be confirmed/replicated. That's what these references to the body of literature are about. The basic idea of human caused global warming is correct because it is continually confirmed by more and more papers.
What if the data is not available to be confirmed/replicated?


NASA and NOAA have publicly available data.

Realclimate is also kind enough to have compiled links to climate data from a number of different sources including raw data, processed data, paleo data and, yes, model codes.

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part. I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)
Well, I, for one, am enjoying it...  One further bit.  In discussing averages, there are also some highly aberrant methodologies being used in climatology outside of science.  Specifically, the IPCC is doing some manipulations which I find I cannot call "questionable science" no matter HOW far I stretch that definition.  When the IPCC calculates the effects of a release of carbon dioxide, one of the important factors is how long the carbon dioxide will stay in the air.  Obviously, if it were to be pulled out of the air the same day, it would not be an issue, and if it were to stay forever in the air, carbon dioxide would be much more important than it is.
So, various studies have estimated how long the average carbon dioxide molecule will stay in the air.  Now, I am not speaking of how accurate any study, or group of studies is...  but, here are the studies listed by the IPCC as having comprised their average number, and the value they used, the latter in red:
[i54.tinypic.com image 850x794]


You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
 
2013-03-25 07:53:17 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.


I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.
 
2013-03-25 01:25:32 PM  

dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.

I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.



Looks can be deceiving, especially if you haven't read the paper the figure is meant to support, and therefore aren't entirely sure what you're looking at. The problem is that what criteria one uses to determine what is a 'match'. As I stated before:

Damnhippyfreak: Part of the problem the graph is trying to come to grips with is the fact that the 1990 IPCC FAR only included greenhouse gas forcing in the prediction highlighted, and therefore if you include natural variation the margins become fairly wide (you can get a sense of how wide it would be from the huge range covered by 'unforced variation' in the graph). This is so wide that the observations fall well within the range of predictions.


To put it another way, look at the range of unforced variation in the graph, and imagine a range of that size overlaid on the 1990 IPCC FAR prediction. Observations easily fall within that range, but this isn't quite satisfying as said variation is really quite large. This is why the authors tried to do something a bit different.
 
2013-03-25 01:34:28 PM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: And you may understand why the process for summing up the state of the planet with just a few averaged numbers is absurd. (When I say "you may understand" I mean that it's highly unlikely, the "you" is the key part. I suppose I should have said "one may understand" but at this point, I'm wagering there isn't much of an audience)
Well, I, for one, am enjoying it...  One further bit.  In discussing averages, there are also some highly aberrant methodologies being used in climatology outside of science.  Specifically, the IPCC is doing some manipulations which I find I cannot call "questionable science" no matter HOW far I stretch that definition.  When the IPCC calculates the effects of a release of carbon dioxide, one of the important factors is how long the carbon dioxide will stay in the air.  Obviously, if it were to be pulled out of the air the same day, it would not be an issue, and if it were to stay forever in the air, carbon dioxide would be much more important than it is.
So, various studies have estimated how long the average carbon dioxide molecule will stay in the air.  Now, I am not speaking of how accurate any study, or group of studies is...  but, here are the studies listed by the IPCC as having comprised their average number, and the value they used, the latter in red:
[i54.tinypic.com image 850x794]


It looks like Baryogenesis got the important point down, but also of note is that not only have you misrepresented what the IPCC claims, you've even misrepresented the graphic you yourself presented, as those in the graph are not "studies listed by the IPCC".
 
2013-03-25 06:59:07 PM  

Baryogenesis:

NASA and NOAA have publicly available data.

Really?  Show me the raw data, and the algorithms used to "value-add" it.  And the CRU's "misplaced" data?  A desire for scientific repeatability means that I would like to reconstruct the alteration process that produced all of the following data sets, charted and released by NASA:

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-25 07:04:07 PM  

Baryogenesis:

You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.

No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.
 
2013-03-25 07:12:35 PM  

dready zim:

Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.

I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.

No, it doesn't.  And when you consider that reality has burst through the bottom of the prediction in such a short time, it's clear that MAJOR problems exist within the models' assumptions.  Just splashing a bunch of crap up, give it error bars that expand at a greater rate than the climate has changed and, voila!   The models are within their error bars.  Any "agreement" with reality in this pile of crap is the result of smoke and mirrors, similar to the "cures" brought about by snake oil.

c3headlines.typepad.com

 
2013-03-25 08:14:33 PM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.


I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
 
2013-03-26 01:04:24 AM  

omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life


No, it's not half life. It's the difference between the path of a single molecule of CO2 and the entire carbon cycle.

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.
 
2013-03-26 01:29:56 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: NASA and NOAA have publicly available data.
Really?  Show me the raw data, and the algorithms used to "value-add" it.  And the CRU's "misplaced" data?  A desire for scientific repeatability means that I would like to reconstruct the alteration process that produced all of the following data sets, charted and released by NASA:

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]


I believe this isn't the firs time these have been pointed out to you, but anyway, here are the big ones:
GHCNv2
UCAR
Hadley Center products, including HadSST

Since your graphic seems to be focusing on GISTEMP, the code used to process it can be found here.

In addition, each of those graphs is associated with a publication which details how each was derived.

Hansen et al. 1981 (note that your graphic got the date wrong)
Hansen et al. 1988
Hansen et al. 2007 (again, note that your graphic got the date wrong)
 
2013-03-26 01:31:20 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: GHCNv2


Sorry, the editor doesn't like ftp links:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
 
2013-03-26 01:37:15 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.


Swing and a miss. If you would have followed your own advice and look up what the IPCC says the concept is instead of relying on a blogger, this is what you would have easily come up with:


Lifetime
Lifetime is a general term used for various time scales characterising the rate of processes affecting the concentration of trace gases. The following lifetimes may be distinguished:

Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a  reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in theatmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.

Adjustment time or response time (Ta) is the time scale characterising the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir. The term adjustment time is also used to characterise the adjustment of the mass of a reservoir following a step change in the  sourcestrength. Half-life or decay constant is used to quantify a first-order exponential decay process. See  response time for a different definition pertinent to  climate variations.

The term lifetime is sometimes used, for simplicity, as a surrogate for adjustment time.

In simple cases, where the global removal of the compound is directly proportional to the total mass of the reservoir, the adjustment time equals the turnover time: T = Ta. An example is  CFC-11, which is removed from the  atmosphere only by photochemical processes in the  stratosphere. In more complicated cases, where several reservoirs are involved or where the removal is not proportional to the total mass, the equality T = Ta no longer holds.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about four years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few years. Thus, the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually determined by the rate of removal of carbon from the surface layer of the oceans into its deeper layers. Although an approximate value of 100 years may be given for the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual adjustment is faster initially and slower later on. In the case of methane (CH4), the adjustment time is different from the turnover time because the removal is mainly through a chemical reaction with the hydroxyl radical OH, the concentration of which itself depends on the CH4 concentration. Therefore, the CH4 removal rate S is not proportional to its total mass M.


From the IPCC AR4 Glossary. Baryogenesis got it exactly right - whomever created that graphic of yours is being misleading by attempting to compare different concepts - something akin to 'turnover time' to 'adjustment time'.
 
2013-03-26 01:44:34 AM  

GeneralJim: dready zim: Damnhippyfreak: So what the authors have of what they've done is compare predictions and observations to a zero hypothesis of no trend with associated variability in order to get a bit better handle on what happened. Observations and predictions both fall outside of that.

I`m not saying there is no trend, although that would happen in about 12 months if the temperatures don`t go up by then.

I`m saying the predictions do not match the measured results and the deviation seems to be growing.

remember why you posted the graph? To show an accurate prediction?

It doesn`t look like it does that to me.
No, it doesn't.  And when you consider that reality has burst through the bottom of the prediction in such a short time, it's clear that MAJOR problems exist within the models' assumptions.  Just splashing a bunch of crap up, give it error bars that expand at a greater rate than the climate has changed and, voila!   The models are within their error bars.  Any "agreement" with reality in this pile of crap is the result of smoke and mirrors, similar to the "cures" brought about by snake oil.
[c3headlines.typepad.com image 850x689]



What you're missing is that short-term or internal variability isn't being shown. Don't forget, your recognition of said variability is what allowed you to say this:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate


Even worse, whomever added commentary to that graph got it absurdly wrong - how can one claim that "actual temp is well below all model predictions" when said actual temperature lies within the range of model runs plotted right there on the graph.

Youreally need to stop taking these random graphics you find on faith and start to think critically about them.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:33 AM  

Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

No, it's not half life. It's the difference between the path of a single molecule of CO2 and the entire carbon cycle.

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.


It involves the half-life principle(exponential decay[or absorbtion if you want, "pulling it out of the air"], that's what the "entire carbon cycle" is) only it also factors in increased emissions above the absorption rate.

Which would be doubling time.(as is linked on the half-life page)  It's a concept you should be familiar with, as some of the very roots of climate change were based on the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time

Not sure what that "path of a single molecule" bit is about.  That is only a path and does not factor in the time that it can simply remain in place, it's more an explanation of how it works.  Yes, we can example how water gets used in the human body, but that is irrelevant when talking about rates of growth/decay (drinking)/decay(perspiration/salivation/excretion).

There is "mean" lifetime, if you want to go there, but it isn't as useful.  Again, using the human body as an example most people can grasp.  The water you drink, one glass in a sitting, some of it get's shed relatively quickly, and some of it hangs around a very long time.  That's why half-life is a more usable method of establishing the rate at which leaves the system, the rest can stay there perpetually.  It's more intuitive in a system that has a constant input and a constant output of the substance in question, and therefore always has some in circulation/use.
 
2013-03-26 01:57:50 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.

No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

Really?  Holy crap.   Well, I'll take your word for it, as I lost my Moron-English dictionary in my last move...
 
2013-03-26 02:08:26 AM  

Baryogenesis:

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.

So, you ARE saying that the extra carbon dioxide is different than "naturally" released carbon dioxide. Do tell...

Y'all need some serious work on your official talking points.  First off, that time is EXACTLY what the graph shows... as determined by the studies involved.  And the IPCC is using, for the same value, between 100 and 200 years; that's what the IPCC says. Are you claiming they're wrong?  The IPCC says they do not do research, they compile research.  The above graphic shows the studies they compiled, and their value for the same characteristic which they got from the studies listed.  It's like Michael Mann -- he "surveyed" a bunch of studies, and said that the survey shows there is no evidence of a world-wide medieval warm period -- but if you look up all of the studies he "surveyed," each and every one of them clearly shows the MWP, and all of them but one shows the little ice age, as well.  And, dumbasses just buy this -- in BOTH cases.  The IPCC needed the long duration to make their dire predictions work out.  Funny thing, though...  the planet wasn't fooled, and refused to play along, no matter what the IPCC predictions were.  Sucks to be you.
 
2013-03-26 02:49:51 AM  

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.
So, you ARE saying that the extra carbon dioxide is different than "naturally" released carbon dioxide. Do tell...

Y'all need some serious work on your official talking points.  First off, that time is EXACTLY what the graph shows... as determined by the studies involved.  And the IPCC is using, for the same value, between 100 and 200 years; that's what the IPCC says. Are you claiming they're wrong?  The IPCC says they do not do research, they compile research.  The above graphic shows the studies they compiled, and their value for the same characteristic which they got from the studies listed.


Most likely an outright falsehood, as said studies are not part of the references listed for any of the chapters of the IPCC AR4 WGI report. Not even the graphic makes that claim.


GeneralJim: It's like Michael Mann -- he "surveyed" a bunch of studies, and said that the survey shows there is no evidence of a world-wide medieval warm period -- but if you look up all of the studies he "surveyed," each and every one of them clearly shows the MWP, and all of them but one shows the little ice age, as well.


I believe I've asked you to back this up in some way on more than one occasion, and you've failed to do so every time. That, combined with the fact that I can find no evidence for this renders this claim undistinguishable from a fabrication. Par for the course considering the previous point.


GeneralJim: And, dumbasses just buy this -- in BOTH cases.  The IPCC needed the long duration to make their dire predictions work out.  Funny thing, though...  the planet wasn't fooled, and refused to play along, no matter what the IPCC predictions were.  Sucks to be you.


An alternate explanation is that you've taken a misleading and easily-debunked graphic from a random blogger on faith. Again.
 
2013-03-26 02:52:05 AM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.

No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
Really?  Holy crap.   Well, I'll take your word for it, as I lost my Moron-English dictionary in my last move...



Or, either of you could have looked it up what the IPCC actually says instead of guessing at it.
 
2013-03-26 03:35:20 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: You're conflating two separate ideas. The average residence of a single molecule of CO2 and how long "extra" CO2 stays in the atmosphere on a macro level before it's pulled into the oceans or locked away through non carbon neutral biological means (fossil fuel formation). A decent analogy would be molecules passing through your body as you eat and gaining weight. Sure, no single molecule stays in your body for long, but you're still adding weight.
No.  There are not two kinds of carbon dioxide.  Look up what the IPCC says the concept is.

I *think* he's talking about the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It's hard to tell though, as we all know his understanding of the English language is...dubious.  If that's what he's talking about, it's just about the clumsiest way possible to explain the well known term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

No, it's not half life. It's the difference between the path of a single molecule of CO2 and the entire carbon cycle.

The additional ~110 ppm over pre industrial concentration wouldn't leave the atmosphere in 5 or 10 years if we stopped emitting CO2. It would take a while for natural processes to pull it out of the air.

It involves the half-life principle(exponential decay[or absorbtion if you want, "pulling it out of the air"], that's what the "entire carbon cycle" is) only it also factors in increased emissions above the absorption rate.

Which would be doubling time.(as is linked on the half-life page)  It's a concept you should be familiar with, as some of the very roots of climate change were based on the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time

Not sure what that "path of a single molecule" bit is about.  That is only a path and does not factor in the time that it can simply remain in place, it's more an explanation of how it works.  Yes, we can example how water gets used in the human body, but that is irrelevant when talking about rates of gr ...


Yeah, I got too focused on a more or less literal decay (breaking down into component parts) rather than an exponential decay describing the reduction in CO2 concentration.  I was trying to establish the difference between the length of time needed for the CO2 in the atmosphere to return to pre industrial levels (half life) as a separate thing from the length of time any individual CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere (flux).

This is the part of the IPCC explanation I'm talking about:  CO2 is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about four years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few years.

The CO2 is constantly turned over, but the overall concentration in the atmosphere isn't affected by that, it's limited by ocean uptake.
 
Displayed 21 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report