• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change- Worst case scenario

Empirical Validation of the Exponential Decay for Surplus CO2

Guest essay by Ari Halperin My new scientific paper Empirical Validation of the Exponential Decay for Surplus CO2 further validates the conclusion that surplus CO2 in the air decays exponentially. The half-life is re-estimated down to 30-35 years. Further, if the CO2 sink rate has changed in the last 100 years, it has increased rather…

1 day ago March 26, 2016 in Carbon dioxide.
I haven't read the article yet, and it's already a no-brainier that CO2 has an exponential decay. But the comment that the sink rate has increased surprises me. With a warming ocean, the sink rate should be declining. Maybe over the long term, it is, and some cyclical event is causing it to be higher rather than lower right now.

There are four things I can think of off the top of my head that would increase the sink rate other than SST (sea surface temperature.)

1) Faster winds than average in the polar ocean regions. Wind velocity has a direct effect on the partial pressure exchange of gas.

2) Slower winds than average in the equatorial regions. Same wind velocity reason.

3) Other factors increasing the rate at which plants absorb CO2. Maybe higher than normal precipitation, allowing faster growth.

4) Maybe land use and natural recovery of lands has the global vegetation area increasing rather than shrinking.

Another possibility is we are being lied to, and the SST is actually decreasing rather than increasing.
 
I haven't read the article yet, and it's already a no-brainier that CO2 has an exponential decay. But the comment that the sink rate has increased surprises me. With a warming ocean, the sink rate should be declining. Maybe over the long term, it is, and some cyclical event is causing it to be higher rather than lower right now.

There are four things I can think of off the top of my head that would increase the sink rate other than SST (sea surface temperature.)

1) Faster winds than average in the polar ocean regions. Wind velocity has a direct effect on the partial pressure exchange of gas.

2) Slower winds than average in the equatorial regions. Same wind velocity reason.

3) Other factors increasing the rate at which plants absorb CO2. Maybe higher than normal precipitation, allowing faster growth.

4) Maybe land use and natural recovery of lands has the global vegetation area increasing rather than shrinking.

I'll be interested in your review.
 
I'll be interested in your review.

I didn't see anything to support or dismiss the causes. The paper is only a math exercise of what is observed.

I edited my post for a 5th reason that I think is unlikely. What he has observed in the data is simply surprising to me if true. Another possibility is that colder than normal waters are being turned to the surface. In the areas of sinking, it would increase sinking. In the areas of sourcing, it would decrease sourcing. After all, the ocean circulation takes over 800 years to circulate, and various heat contents are likely seen as it circulates.

My gut feeling of this is that it is a natural cyclical pattern of sinking/sourcing rate changes. However, I wouldn't claim that with much certainty. I would likely be force to claim "95% certainty" if this was pressed by the IPCC that it's natural reasons for the sinking to have increased.
 
I haven't read the article yet, and it's already a no-brainier that CO2 has an exponential decay. But the comment that the sink rate has increased surprises me. With a warming ocean, the sink rate should be declining. Maybe over the long term, it is, and some cyclical event is causing it to be higher rather than lower right now.

There are four things I can think of off the top of my head that would increase the sink rate other than SST (sea surface temperature.)

1) Faster winds than average in the polar ocean regions. Wind velocity has a direct effect on the partial pressure exchange of gas.

2) Slower winds than average in the equatorial regions. Same wind velocity reason.

3) Other factors increasing the rate at which plants absorb CO2. Maybe higher than normal precipitation, allowing faster growth.

4) Maybe land use and natural recovery of lands has the global vegetation area increasing rather than shrinking.

Another possibility is we are being lied to, and the SST is actually decreasing rather than increasing.

Just ideas;

The run-off from agricultural fertilizers which cause algal blooms.

That CO2 may be absorbed in proportion to it's abundance in the air by the ocean, either by just dissolving or by plankton.

That the extra CO2 in the air might be mostly from soil errosion rather than fossil fuels. That we mightbe getting better at not fouling up ecco systems.

All of these are just speculation.
 
I am still waiting for the Ice Age that the alarmists promised back in 1973.

I see you don't know how to differentiate popular news stories and actual science.

That's ok, most people can't. But lucky for you, scientists can.
 
I see you don't know how to differentiate popular news stories and actual science.

That's ok, most people can't. But lucky for you, scientists can.

You just very well could be the "Charlie Watts" of the alarmist band wagon.
 
You just very well could be the "Charlie Watts" of the alarmist band wagon.

Not sure what that even means.

But I guess ignoring the point I made above makes it simpler for you - skipping complex ideas allows you to not to have to think about things too hard.
 

[h=1]DeConto and Pollard – An Antarctic Science (Fiction?) Disaster[/h] Readers may recall the announcement of the PR for the recent paper claiming Sea-Level rise from Antarctic ice sheet could double in WUWT. In a tongue and cheek way, I prefaced it with “Oh Noes!” due to the ridiculous claims being made from model output. I wasn’t the only one seeing this paper as flawed. It’s actually…
 
[h=2] Apocalypse of sea levels coming. Global Worriers on beach should sell up to deniers[/h]



A group called NGIS Australia are helping climate skeptics find cheaper beach-houses. They’ve put up a website called Coastalrisk.com.au and an App to scarify homeowners. There’s a spike coming, it’s accelerating, and we’re talking billions of dollars.
Do I hear tipping point? It’s a tipping point:
At the moment, there are only a few homes impacted by coastal flooding, high tides and storms but Mr Mallon said we needed to brace for a big spike.
“Tens of thousands of homes in Australia — meaning hundreds of millions of dollars in property — are under increasing threat,” he said.
You could say they’ve gone full mental with the fear factor — especially when global sea levels are rising at about 1mm a year (according to a thousand tide gauges). In Sydney, sea levels are streaking up even slower, at 0.6mm a year.
Changes in sea levels in Australia don’t fit the carbon meme too well. Sell up anyway.
Australian-NZ seas were changing as fast or even faster before World War II.


How many Australians? Seriously…
About 80 per cent of Australians who live near the coast could be the target of rising sea levels, which were predicted in a Climate Council report in 2014.
This is a continent of beach suburbs – 85% Australians live within an hours drive of the beach.
More than $200 billion of our infrastructure could be at risk, with parts of the country suffering from more frequent, and severe, floods.
All light blue areas on the map show the parts of Australia most at risk of flooding.
Homeowners and investors will also be hugely impacted by rising sea levels.
[h=4]Look out for psychic market forces:[/h] Climate Valuation Project head Karl Mallon said unknown to most buyers and owners, there were suburbs in every state where houses were devalued due to climate change.
That’ll be all the buyers that devalue something for a factor they don’t know about.
“Extreme weather risk is rapidly driving up insurance premiums and insurers are already refusing to cover large parts of Australia,” he said.
Last time I looked, no one lived in large parts of Australia. But insurers would be wise to steer clear of flood plains below dams that use Tim Flannery Forecasting.
If insurance premiums are up it hasn’t got much to do with cyclones.
Severe and non-severe cyclones in the Australian region from 1970 – 2011.

Source: Bureau of Meteorology, Tropical Cyclone Trends.

Keep reading →
 
Back
Top Bottom