I’ve examined the concepts from “European Geophysical Society 2003 VARIATIONS OF COMPOSITION AND TEMPERATURE OF THE STRATOSPHERE CAUSED BY SOLAR UV RADIATION’

I find no relevance however, pertaining to this global warming event. It would be helpful if you are going to offer up random papers that don’t seem to be relevant, if you could explain the scientific basis for the reason you are presenting the information. Otherwise it becomes less meaningful to respond to you.

I’ve said this ad infinitum in this blog, context and relevance is key.

The other paper you presented from 1974 “Solar flux and its variations” is outdated. We have much better data now.

The abstract you presented on
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 19, GB4013, doi:10.1029/2004GB002257, 2005
is a study between 1988 – 2001 (13 years) does not qualify as a long term climate study as it is not mature enough. It is mostly studying the NAO, PDO and ENSO. That does not mean that it does not add to the aggregate knowledge pertaining to NAO, PDO and ENSO as it does, but again ‘relevance’ and ‘context’ are critical. It is not germane to the AGW argument.

You are not presenting any relevant information and you are still apparently taking things out of context. If you can’t bring relevant information to the argument, or proper context, then your argument and perspective is or should be considered irrelevant, ie.e not germane to the present knowledge and understanding of AGW.

Interannual and decadal changes in the sea-air CO2 flux from atmospheric CO2 inverse modeling

Prabir K. Patra

Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan

Shamil Maksyutov

Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan

Misa Ishizawa

Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan

Takakiyo Nakazawa

Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Taro Takahashi

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA

Jinro Ukita

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA

Abstract

The atmosphere-land-ocean fluxes of CO2 were derived for 64 partitioned areas of the globe (22 over the ocean and 42 over the land) using a time-dependent inverse (TDI) model for the period of January 1988 to December 2001. The model calculation partially follow the TransCom-3 protocol, and is constrained by atmospheric CO2 concentration data from 87 stations and fully time-dependent atmospheric transport model simulations. The air-to-land and air-to-sea fluxes averaged over the 1990s are estimated at 1.15 ± 0.74 and 1.88 ± 0.53 Pg-C yr−1, respectively. These estimates, however, remain uncertain owing to sampling biases arising from the sparse distribution of atmospheric CO2 data, are compared with other estimates by various methods. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the differences in fluxes and flux variability caused by the choices of initial conditions for the TDI model are smaller compared to those due to the selection of measurement networks. Our model results capture interannual variations in global and regional CO2 fluxes realistically. The estimated oceanic CO2 flux anomalies appear to be closely related to prominent climate modes such as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The results from the correlation analyses show that the oceanic CO2 flux in the tropics is strongly influenced by the ENSO dynamical cycle, and that in the sub-polar regions by upwelling of sub-surface waters in the winter and plankton blooms in the spring.

Received 14 March 2004; accepted 26 August 2005; published 15 November 2005.
I enjoy reading your interesting posts, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all your points of view -Walt

“The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn’t answer that question.”

If take “stink” as a creative hybrid for “still” and “sink” then I get your drift.

First, let me commend you on accepting that on a net basis the oceans are absorbing rather than releasing CO2, so the oceans are not presently the cause of climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Presumably that means you acknowledge that man is largely responsible for that fact (I note, BTW, that tropical deforestation is considered a substantial cause – roughly a fifth to a third of annual contributions)?

As for your question the simple (and tautological response) is that ocean concentrations of CO2 (as carbonic acid/H2CO3 fizz) are climbing simply because the atmsophere and oceans move towards equilibrium, so that climbing atmospheric concentrations means more CO2 must be dissolved into the oceans – this is the “put the fizz in the Coke” effect. There are opposite equilibrium pushes from the “already full of fizz” effect and from the “warming Coke” effect that gradually will erode the ocean as a sink by offsetting the “fizz in” effect. That clearly hasn’t happened yet partly because our push from the atmospheric CO2 side hasn’t ended and is rather scaling up.

Anything else?

Your humble (and hysterical and lying) correspondent,

Tom

“The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn’t answer that question.”

If take “stink” as a creative hybrid for “still” and “sink” then I get your drift.

First, let me commend you on accepting that on a net basis the oceans are absorbing rather than releasing CO2, so the oceans are not presently the cause of climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Presumably that means you acknowledge that man is largely responsible for that fact (I note, BTW, that tropical deforestation is considered a substantial cause – roughly a fifth to a third of annual contributions)?

As for your question the simple (and tautological response) is that ocean concentrations of CO2 (as carbonic acid/H2CO3 fizz) are climbing simply because the atmsophere and oceans move towards equilibrium, so that climbing atmospheric concentrations means more CO2 must be dissolved into the oceans – this is the “put the fizz in the Coke” effect. There are opposite equilibrium pushes from the “already full of fizz” effect and from the “warming Coke” effect that gradually will erode the ocean as a sink by offsetting the “fizz in” effect. That clearly hasn’t happened yet partly because our push from the atmospheric CO2 side hasn’t ended and is rather scaling up.

Anything else?

Your humble, hysterical and lying correspondent,

Tom

European Geophysical Society 2003
VARIATIONS OF COMPOSITION AND
TEMPERATURE OF THE STRATOSPHERE
CAUSED BY SOLAR UV RADIATION
Dyominov, I. G. (1), A. M. Zadorozhny (1)
(1) Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia (dyominov@phys.nsu.ru)
We examine changes in composition and temperature of the stratosphere caused by
solar UV radiation varying in the course of the 11-year cycle. The examination is
based on a two-dimensional self-consistent radiative photochemical model of the troposphere
and stratosphere. The model calculates diabatic circulation, temperature, distributions
of 45 minor gas constituents, the polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) of type
I and type II, and condensed particles of sulphuric acid hydrate with radii 6.4 nm  r
 5200 nm.
We found that the 11-year solar UV flux variations, when moving toward the solar
activity maximum, lead to a significant increase in oxygen and hydrogen constituents
in the stratosphere above 25 km. For example, the solar UV variations lead to about
14%, 12%, 6% 10%, 8%, 7%, and 4% changes for O(1D), O(3P), O3, H2O2, HO2,
OH, and H2O, respectively, in winter in middle latitudes at a 35 km altitude. Changes
of nitrogen and chlorine constituents are comparatively less in the 11-year solar activity
cycle. The only exception is nitrous oxide which variation above 45 km is
greater than 20-30%. Ozone increase, when moving toward the solar activity maximum,
leads to a significant temperature increase for all latitudes at altitudes above
30 km. We found that the 11-year temperature variations at a 35 km altitude almost
everywhere practically follow the solar UV variations. In the springtime, in middle
latitudes at a 25 km altitude the 11-year maximums in O3, N2O and HNO3 fall behind
the solar UV maximums by about 2, 14, and 29 months. Total ozone variations
mainly coincide with the solar UV variations.We have compared all these results with
available experimental data.

I tried to look up what you are talking about via google but did not find anything that seemed to relate to your post.

Can you clarify with cites or web links I can read please. I’m also unsure what you mean by “large changes in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere”.

Large is a relative term and you have not provided a frame of reference, i.e. do you mean quantity and if so in relation to what? … non GHG trace gases or total atmosphere? … or do you mean relative to reflective aerosols; or do you mean changes in the forcing in general of the changes in aerosols or GHG’s?

For those with inquiring minds, here is an article pending for publication (with authors` email addresses) in The Annual Review of Marine Science on “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem”: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?cookieSet=1

Summary points are as follows:

“1. The surface ocean currently absorbs approximately one-third of the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) injected into the atmosphere from human fossil fuel use and deforestation, which leads to a reduction in pH and wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry.

“2. The resulting lowering of seawater carbonate ion concentrations and the saturation state for calcium carbonate are well documented in field data, and the rate of change is projected to increase over the 21st century unless predicted future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically.

“3. Acidification will directly impact a wide range of marine organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate, from planktonic coccolithophores and pteropods and other molluscs, to echinoderms, corals, and coralline algae. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions, whereas some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying) have higher carbon fixation rates under high CO2.

“4. Our present understanding of potential ocean acidification impacts on marine organisms stems largely from short-term laboratory and mesocosm experiments; consequently, the response of individual organisms, populations, and communities to more realistic gradual changes is largely unknown (Boyd et al. 2008).

5. The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and the broader implications
for ocean ecosystems are not well known; an emerging body of evidence suggests
that the impact of risingCO2 on marine biota will be more varied than previously thought,
with both ecological winners and losers.

“6. Ocean acidification likely will affect the biogeochemical dynamics of calcium carbonate, organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the ocean as well as the seawater chemical speciation of trace metals, trace elements, and dissolved organic matter.

“7. Acidification impacts on processes so fundamental to the overall structure and function of marine ecosystems that any significant changes could have far-reaching consequences for the oceans of the future and the millions of people that depend on its food and other resources for their livelihoods.

“8. Geo-engineering solutions that attempt to slow global warming without reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as injection of stratospheric aerosols (Crutzen 2006), will not reduce ocean acidification.”

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?cookieSet=1

Roger/fundamentalist: “And what data do climate scientists use to determine that solar forcing? Are they using the carbon 14 or sunspot data?”

.3 W/m2 is the solar forcing from sunspots, added or taken away, it’s still just .3 W/m2

Do you have actual science that says it is not .3 W/m2? Please do share. Or is this one of the magic moments where you think I can read your mind and find the exact piece of data you are referring to? You have presented in this entire thread not one piece of contextually relevant evidence in regard to your argument you are literally standing on opinion and claiming its science.

Roger/fundamentalist: “Don’t be so condescending. Do you really think I’m so stupid that I can’t add the simple figures you keep throwing out? … I’m arguing that the science is wrong because it doesn’t sufficiently take into account solar forcings.”

I am saying literally that you are ignorant in that you are ignoring the known solar forcings. The forcing variance on the surface of the planet between a high sunspot cycle and a solar minimum is .3 W/m2.

Roger/fundamentalist: “Obviously, you can’t think beyond the mainstream science. It’s the gospel to you and you won’t consider any option. I happen to be able to think for myself and think the skeptics have good arguments that the mainstream refuses to consider.”

As I have explained numerous times, apparently to a deaf ear, I look beyond mainstream science, a lot. What is more obvious is that you can’t support your argument with any science, let alone mainstream science and you are ignorant of the actual forcings. What is also obvious is that you religiously believe in your own, or others opinions rather than science in general.

And what data do climate scientists use to determine that solar forcing? Are they using the carbon 14 or sunspot data?

John: “The current forcings and past forcings are all well considered in the models.”

Then why won’t they validate their models against temperatures as every other modeller in the world has to do before his model is taken seriously by anyone?

John: “Do the math.”

Don’t be so condescending. Do you really think I’m so stupid that I can’t add the simple figures you keep throwing out? I disagree with the numbers that the mainstream science supplies. Of course I would have to reach the same conclusion as you do if I accepted all of the data and conclusions of mainstream climate science and did not consider the arguments of the skeptics. I’m arguing that the science is wrong because it doesn’t sufficiently take into account solar forcings.

Obviously, you can’t think beyond the mainstream science. It’s the gospel to you and you won’t consider any option. I happen to be able to think for myself and think the skeptics have good arguments that the mainstream refuses to consider.

How many times do you need to prove you have no clue?

Over the centuries of solar observation the solar forcing is still about .3 W/m2.

The scientists all know this. The current forcings and past forcings are all well considered in the models.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is human (in case you don’t know that word), and the connotation of GW as you have used it is natural cycle. They are fundamentally different.

Do the math. 3.9 W/m2 – .3 W/m2 for solar, then – 2 W/m2 for aerosols and albedo.

If your answer is not below zero, then you can’t look at the usual suspects, you have to look at the evidence and where that points, and that is anthropogenic/industrial output of GHG’s.

Your simply being ignorant of the facts and the science.

No it is not, because there is not AGW, only GW.

John: “It continues to be apparent that you do not understand forcing levels, which I have explained in previous posts.”

I understand them completely. They’re just irrelevant. They have very little to do with GW.

John: “What you are questioning has already been considered in the models.”

That’s simply not true. The models consider only the minor contribution of the 11-year cycle of the sun, not the major variations in solar activity over centuries.

Actually you are wrong on both points. It does not matter in this case that it has been warmer, and cooler. Again I repeat context and relevance. AGW is a different animal than GW.

It continues to be apparent that you do not understand forcing levels, which I have explained in previous posts.

You just don’t understand, or you are ignoring the obvious. You can not compare the natural cycle of interglacial forcing around equilibrium (0 W/m2) and glacial around (-3.4 W/m2) with the AGW forcing of around 4 W/m2 plus the industrial aerosols for the negative.

Really, it is remedial math. Just do the math.

What you are questioning has already been considered in the models. You have nothing relevant in your post.

I agree completely with the context part, but not the understanding. I understand the standard model well enough. You are right that my comments don’t fit into the context of the standard model. What I have been trying to say is that the standard model is wrong.

John: “It’s been warmer.”

And it has been cooler. The planet goes naturally goes through cycles of warm and cold. It has been as warm in the past as it is today. In the past it warmed as much as it has today without any human forcing. That suggests that the human-caused explanations for GW are wrong. If climate modelers would be honest enough to include the real, long term contributions of solar heating and cooling to their models, they would see it.

John: “You are not presenting anything new here.”

I’m not trying to present anything new. I’m trying to get some people who are open to reason to face the obvious facts that have been staring people in the face for centuries.

Again you display a complete lack of understanding and context. We came out of the last ice age about 15k yrs ago. It’s been warmer. You are not presenting anything new here.

“Scientists have long known there were periods of warmer weather in the region but the artefacts allowed them to identify the exact years, when the site would have been passable on foot.”

“According to Grosjean, such data could help sharpen forecasts for the future by taking into account patterns of natural temperature fluctuation.”

The important point is that the planet has been as hot as it is today on several occasions in the distant past, at least around 4,000 BC and during the Roman Empire. Otherwise, these artifacts would not have been frozen in the glaciers. Ancient people survived the heat wave; I guess we will, too.

Sorry, but I have been on the road for the past week.

I would like to speak with you. Could you contact me through the Centrist site. It is clear that you are looking at the bigger picture and others remain myopic.

However, I would like to discuss some ideas with you if you have time.

Best,
John

Why is it that, if there is to be any progress on this thread, those who are the targets of ad hominem attacks are the ones who are expected to turn the other cheek and to soldier on?