Your work is more in depth than mine on this. I appreciate that there are others looking into this. Bottom line is the higher the atmospheric concentration, the higher the rate of absorption by photosynthesis which is an incredibly good thing.
I'm also assuming that the higher the rate of increase of emissions, the lower the proportion absorbed, which would result in an increase in overall concentration. Isn't that what has happened?
I would appreciate a comment from others - warmists and sceptics: As the graph on sea level from 1880 shows no acceleration at all, and doesn't show any response to the warming, then cooling, then warming of the temp since then...doesn't that strongly imply that there is no warming - that the global temp is no different than it was in 1880? It merely shows a steady increase according to tidal gauges that you would expect since the LIA and, long-term, since the end of the glacial period 10,000 years ago. I can't provide a link as this will get removed, but the graph is widely available and on NASA's earthobservatory. It shows zero response to the mid 20th century drop in temps which was 40 years long.
These very large systems at work on planet earth are outside of man's influence. I don't see how humans and their activities make any difference on how the oceans behave, as just one example. Thank you for the talk Joachim.
Naturally I would expect that CO2 diminishes as it is sequested in the sea by organisiums that require shells of Calcium carbonate as well as buried vegitation (coal and oil). Hence a reason for declining CO2 in the past. Furthermore photosynthesis is the means of oxygen replentishment (something that we need). Earth runs a system in equilibrium that also converts methane to CO2 enhancing essential plant growth. An excellent comentary by Joachim thank you.
Another fabulous presentation Tom. Good guest. Fascinating points. The temperature rise shown is correlated with Co2 only of the temperature calculation methods are right. If the temperature records are reading 50,% hotter due to faulty records then the correlation dies or is not so "obvious ". Temperature stations where the Global Reading is averaged certainly are faulty based on the work by Willie el.
In the graphs you show there is a constant rise in CO2 for over 60 years but the temperature has not moved worth a damn, in the UK other than in Scotland we have not had the same volume of snow in winter! but in summer there has been only a small variation in the amount of rain in (ie more across the months ) but not any significant increase!
Only insofar as the (very) long-term graphs from ice core samples show, but these span hundreds of thousands of years. They tell us nothing about decadal periods. However, it is established that as oceans warm they release CO2.
It is difficult enough to find anyone in the mainstream to mention carbon sinks at all. But I found no one besides Roy Spencer who speaks about sinks being influenced by temperature. Roy Spencer restricts the effect to El Niño. But physics doesn’t „know“ El Niño, only temperature. It is my contribution to explain a proper temperature dependence while only a dependence on fluctuations can be directly observed.
How can natural emissions not feature in the climate models when the carbon cycle is a basic component of Geology 101, and is regularly used to debunk the claim that humans are responsible for only 3% of the CO2 increase? I couldn't follow the logic of that. Also, what of the C12 vs C13 isotopes, which they make much use of in claiming that the growing concentration is due to increased C12 from buried carbon ('fossil fuels') that long ago lost its radioactivity? That was not mentioned here. As I understand it, the sharp drop in CO2 levels occurred around 300 million years ago, and is most probably due to the evolution and growth of trees, which used lignum that captured carbon. Lignum could not be digested by microbes for several tens of millions of years, so it remained captured, was buried, and became coal. Bacteria later learnt to digest lignum and so CO2 levels returned as before.
Hi Tom, your question at the end about pressure in bubbles: Logic would say: that if there was pressure then on bringing up the ice core it would swell so much that it would not be extractable! Ice is water, the deeper you go the pressure increases but water cannot be compressed. On compressing water its temperature decreases. The bubble is contained in a solid cell not in a liquid.
Cripes, just check out the other large changes shown in the graph. Also, do they really think that the change of a single year from the previous is significant?
Once again it needs to be pointed out that icecore average Co2 concentrations from long ago do not show peaks and troths and those averages are taken from samples with a timespan of 1000s of years. Those averages do not mean very much..
there is not too much CO₂ in the atmosphere quite the contrary CO₂ is close to a 542 million year low CO₂ was 4,500 ppm at the beginning of our eon between 1,700 ppm and 2,000 ppm during the Mesozoic era when the dinosaurs lived and is 420 ppm today
Of cause natural emissions are variable. 1. Submerged volcanoes- circa 1,000,000 of them. 2. Variable ocean temperature. 3. Deforestation due to solar and wind farms. 🤷♂️
If your model works (and it does seem to), and if 2023 resulted in a large upwards spike, the model would seem to be predicting that there will be a large -ve spike in the very near future.
In relation to air in ice cores, my understanding is that it results from air trapped in snow that builds up over centuries - around 800 years. The snow slowly compacts and seals the gases away from the atmosphere, so pressure is largely equalised but more importantly the time scale for gas composition is also averaged over many centuries. Check proxy discussions, they cover this type of thing.
“Blessed is he who rules in the name of the Lord.” Beatitudes Give me just 50 leaders who lead us n the name will f the Lord and I won’t reset the planet as in the days of Lot and Noah. Buy an electric vehicle and leaves the electric lights on for Christ’s sake to siphon off earth’s increasing magnetosphere to mitigate climate disasters and fulfill God’s plan of Heaven on Earth.
God will not plan anything. God doesn’t do planning. God is always the “way it is” and thus the way things should be. If we understand this, then we can work with reality and human reality and proceed without constant self-inflicted suffering. In other words we can do what only we can do - behave well and plan well for the future and always keep God in our hearts and minds.
Your work is more in depth than mine on this. I appreciate that there are others looking into this. Bottom line is the higher the atmospheric concentration, the higher the rate of absorption by photosynthesis which is an incredibly good thing.
I'm also assuming that the higher the rate of increase of emissions, the lower the proportion absorbed, which would result in an increase in overall concentration. Isn't that what has happened?
I would appreciate a comment from others - warmists and sceptics:
As the graph on sea level from 1880 shows no acceleration at all, and doesn't show any response to the warming, then cooling, then warming of the temp since then...doesn't that strongly imply that there is no warming - that the global temp is no different than it was in 1880? It merely shows a steady increase according to tidal gauges that you would expect since the LIA and, long-term, since the end of the glacial period 10,000 years ago. I can't provide a link as this will get removed, but the graph is widely available and on NASA's earthobservatory. It shows zero response to the mid 20th century drop in temps which was 40 years long.
These very large systems at work on planet earth are outside of man's influence. I don't see how humans and their activities make any difference on how the oceans behave, as just one example. Thank you for the talk Joachim.
Naturally I would expect that CO2 diminishes as it is sequested in the sea by organisiums that require shells of Calcium carbonate as well as buried vegitation (coal and oil). Hence a reason for declining CO2 in the past. Furthermore photosynthesis is the means of oxygen replentishment (something that we need). Earth runs a system in equilibrium that also converts methane to CO2 enhancing essential plant growth.
An excellent comentary by Joachim thank you.
Another fabulous presentation Tom. Good guest. Fascinating points. The temperature rise shown is correlated with Co2 only of the temperature calculation methods are right. If the temperature records are reading 50,% hotter due to faulty records then the correlation dies or is not so "obvious ". Temperature stations where the Global Reading is averaged certainly are faulty based on the work by Willie el.
In the graphs you show there is a constant rise in CO2 for over 60 years but the temperature has not moved worth a damn, in the UK other than in Scotland we have not had the same volume of snow in winter! but in summer there has been only a small variation in the amount of rain in (ie more across the months ) but not any significant increase!
I am not claiming any causality from CO2 to temperature - I said that clearly in the talk
I thought it was widely accepted that CO2 increase followed temperature increase.
Only insofar as the (very) long-term graphs from ice core samples show, but these span hundreds of thousands of years. They tell us nothing about decadal periods. However, it is established that as oceans warm they release CO2.
It is difficult enough to find anyone in the mainstream to mention carbon sinks at all. But I found no one besides Roy Spencer who speaks about sinks being influenced by temperature.
Roy Spencer restricts the effect to El Niño. But physics doesn’t „know“ El Niño, only temperature.
It is my contribution to explain a proper temperature dependence while only a dependence on fluctuations can be directly observed.
How can natural emissions not feature in the climate models when the carbon cycle is a basic component of Geology 101, and is regularly used to debunk the claim that humans are responsible for only 3% of the CO2 increase? I couldn't follow the logic of that. Also, what of the C12 vs C13 isotopes, which they make much use of in claiming that the growing concentration is due to increased C12 from buried carbon ('fossil fuels') that long ago lost its radioactivity? That was not mentioned here.
As I understand it, the sharp drop in CO2 levels occurred around 300 million years ago, and is most probably due to the evolution and growth of trees, which used lignum that captured carbon. Lignum could not be digested by microbes for several tens of millions of years, so it remained captured, was buried, and became coal. Bacteria later learnt to digest lignum and so CO2 levels returned as before.
Hi Tom, your question at the end about pressure in bubbles:
Logic would say: that if there was pressure then on bringing up the ice core it would swell so much that it would not be extractable!
Ice is water, the deeper you go the pressure increases but water cannot be compressed.
On compressing water its temperature decreases.
The bubble is contained in a solid cell not in a liquid.
Gases can be compressed.
Cripes, just check out the other large changes shown in the graph. Also, do they really think that the change of a single year from the previous is significant?
Once again it needs to be pointed out that icecore average Co2 concentrations from long ago do not show peaks and troths and those averages are taken from samples with a timespan of 1000s of years. Those averages do not mean very much..
there is not too much CO₂ in the atmosphere
quite the contrary
CO₂ is close to a 542 million year low
CO₂ was 4,500 ppm at the beginning of our eon
between 1,700 ppm and 2,000 ppm during the Mesozoic era
when the dinosaurs lived
and is 420 ppm today
And if Yong Zhong, Paul Linsay, Tom Shula and Dr. Markus Ott are correct, then it's not doing anything, anyway.
@
it may not be doing anything temperature wise
but it is essential for life
@@johnvoelker4345
Oh, absolutely.
What effect would Geo-engineering have across the G20 countries. The UK has had very little sunshine all year, courtesy of Bill Gates.
Of cause natural emissions are variable.
1. Submerged volcanoes- circa 1,000,000 of them.
2. Variable ocean temperature.
3. Deforestation due to solar and wind farms.
🤷♂️
Thanks Joachim, thanks Tom. It's always a pleasure listening in. Cheers mate.
There are no a single variable problems.
If your model works (and it does seem to), and if 2023 resulted in a large upwards spike, the model would seem to be predicting that there will be a large -ve spike in the very near future.
In relation to air in ice cores, my understanding is that it results from air trapped in snow that builds up over centuries - around 800 years. The snow slowly compacts and seals the gases away from the atmosphere, so pressure is largely equalised but more importantly the time scale for gas composition is also averaged over many centuries. Check proxy discussions, they cover this type of thing.
Thanks!
Just speed up to 1.5x to streamline the presentation..🙂
“Blessed is he who rules in the name of the Lord.” Beatitudes
Give me just 50 leaders who lead us n the name will f the Lord and I won’t reset the planet as in the days of Lot and Noah.
Buy an electric vehicle and leaves the electric lights on for Christ’s sake to siphon off earth’s increasing magnetosphere to mitigate climate disasters and fulfill God’s plan of Heaven on Earth.
God will not plan anything. God doesn’t do planning. God is always the “way it is” and thus the way things should be.
If we understand this, then we can work with reality and human reality and proceed without constant self-inflicted suffering. In other words we can do what only we can do - behave well and plan well for the future and always keep God in our hearts and minds.