Gingerich, 2019 is a recent paper reiterating the PETM Chicken Little of the Sea meme. In the comments section of a recent post, it was cited as evidence of imminent catastrophe and followed up by a comment featuring this image from Clean Tecnica:
I just had to track this back to the Clean Tecnica article… Their scientific prowess is almost always laughable… And I was not disappointed.
Oceans cover about 71% of the earth surface, but their influence on climate change is not only due to high heat capacity of water , not only to the ocean’s water circulation, but to a fact which is widely underestimated : the pH (acidity level) of sea-water is substantially alkaline, ranging from 8.0 to 8.7 . This means that the balance between positive and negative ions is reached by accounting for OH– ,hydroxide ions, in a far larger amount in respect to H+ hydrogen ions.
The pH value higher than 7 allows seawater to dissolve and react huge amounts of CO2 , carbon dioxide, thus affecting the amount of this gas in the atmosphere by absorbing excess of it. To calculate this excess in respect to what would be the true equilibrium value in the air, all of the chemical reactions involved have to be simultaneously computed, accounting for their equilibrium constants, which in turn depend on temperature.
1 – CO2 (gas) + H2O <==> H2CO3* (H2CO3* is the sum of dissolved CO2 and H2CO3)
2 – H2CO3 <==> H+ + HCO3–
3 – HCO3– <==> H+ + CO3– –
4 – H2O <==> H++ OH–
5 – Ca++ + CO3– – <==> CaCO3 (calcite)
6 – Ca++ + OH– <==> Ca(OH)+
7 – Mg++ + OH– <==> Mg(OH)+
Conclusions : CO2 is at 410 ppm far above the equilibrium value (315) , provided a standard seawater composition and an average ocean temperature of 17°C (taken from wikipedia). No doubt that solubility will force more CO2 to be stored in oceans . Moreover if we consider CaCO3 formation (seawater has overshot the solubility of this salt nearly 50 times but nucleation and growth are slow) still more CO2 will be stored by limestone.
Atlantico : Quelles solutions envisagées par la communauté scientifique sont aujourd’hui les plus plausibles pour infléchir réellement le réchauffement climatique ? Pour l’inverser ?
François Gervais : La température moyenne de la Planète a augmenté de l’ordre de 1°C depuis le début du siècle dernier. Mais selon les données du Hadley Center britannique (HADCRUT4), 60 % de cette hausse s’est produite de 1910 à 1945 alors que les émissions de CO2 étaient 6 à 10 fois inférieures à ce qu’elles sont de nos jours, plaidant pour une cause principalement naturelle. Durant les 74 années suivantes, la température n’a augmenté que de 0,4°C en dépit de l’accélération des émissions à partir de 1945. Ce ne sont donc pas les observations qui sont inquiétantes mais les projections des modèles de climat repris par le GIEC. Leur problème est toutefois qu’ils ne sont pas d’accord entre eux, prévoyant des hausses avec une incertitude dans un rapport de 1 à 3, incertitude qui ne s’est pas réduite en 40 ans d’études en dépit de moyens considérables. Un corpus de 3000 publications dans des revues internationales conclut en revanche à une prééminence de la variabilité naturelle du climat sur la contribution anthropique. Cela dit, réduire notre addiction au carbone est sans doute sage car les ressources ne sont pas inépuisables. Mais jouer aux apprentis sorciers avec la géo-ingénierie est plus discutable. Et à quoi bon puisque des astronomes prévoient une moindre activité solaire dans les années à venir. Les recherches visant à retransformer le CO2 en carburant à partir de la photosynthèse de micro-algues sont intéressantes, surtout si le prix du baril devait considérablement augmenter à l’avenir. Toutefois, le supplément de CO2dans l’atmosphère a enrichi la biomasse végétale de l’ordre de 20 % comme le vérifie le verdissement de la Planète observé par satellite. Serait-il raisonnable d’en contrarier le bénéfice en particulier pour les plantes nutritives ?
Another new paper published in Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology casts further doubt on the paradigm that says CO2 has historically been a temperature driver.
Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than a peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.
Réduire le réchauffement global sur Terre de 1,5° ? Dans un récent rapport, le Giec échafaude quatre scénarios pour y parvenir. Mais aucun d’eux ne tient la route.
es quatre scénarios mettent en œuvre à des degrés divers les techniques dites de Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), qui compensent les émissions humaines de CO2. Écoutons les experts « scientifiques » du GIEC — dont la plupart ne sont pas scientifiques. Lisons les experts du GIEC :
The recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) for a Net Zero emissions target by 2050 is grounded in nothing stronger than irresponsible optimism and arbitrary assumptions about cost and technological feasibility. In point of fact, the technologies seen as necessary, including carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), further expansion of renewable generation, widespread adoption of hydrogen, and the very rapid electrification of the UK’s entire heating and transport systems, are either known failures or are unproven at these scales and would cost two to three times the amounts claimed by the CCC. Attempts to deliver these policies would ultimately fail, but in the attempt the UK would further harm its already declining productivity, and so erode the UK’s ability to compete internationally and thus deliver an acceptable standard of living for its people. This is not a sustainable low emissions strategy, and even if accepted by government is very likely to end only in humiliating and distressed policy correction. A wise government would reject this advice.
The Net Zero target and the recent history of emissions reductions in the UK
The consistent pattern of the IPCC reveals demonization and misrepresentations of CO2. Here are some basic facts about CO2 that illustrate the discrepancy between what the IPCC claim and what science knows.
Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere; it is far from being the most important or even only greenhouse gas as most of the public understands.
Water vapour which is 95 percent of the greenhouse gases by volume is by far the most abundant and important greenhouse gas.
The other natural greenhouse gas of relevance is methane (CH4), but it is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0,036 percent of all greenhouse gases.
In order to amplify the importance of CO2 they created a measure called “climate sensitivity”. This determines that CO2 is more “effective” as a greenhouse gas than water vapour
Here is a table from Wikipedia showing estimates of the effectiveness of the various GHGs. Notice the range of estimates, which effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”
For the past 30 years, there has been an orchestrated alarm over how much a trace of a trace gas, human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), impacts earth’s climate.
The idea was presented as the ‘settled science’ and that there exists a ‘greenhouse effect’ in Earth’s atmosphere and that CO2 ‘traps heat’ or ‘delays cooling’.
Besides the ‘official scientists’ who have convinced the world that there really is a problem, there are what I call the pseudo-skeptics, a large group that is more widely known as ‘Lukewarmists’.
They include many professors who don’t disagree that the trace gas CO2 must be causing ‘some’ warming but think it is so small it isn’t worth worrying about.
This group also fully backs the greenhouse gas theory and claims CO2 warming is logarithmic (i.e., determined on a sliding scale of positive water vapor feedback – see this post from WUWT with reader comments and the subsequent confusion).
Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases of stable-isotope proxies from the Phanerozoic Eon (~540 to 0 years before the present) and through complementary modeling using the atmospheric absorption/transmittance code MODTRAN. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
According to the calculations of Dr. James Hansen, the radiative influence derived from the increase in CO2 during the last deglaciation was so negligible that it equated to “a third of energy required to power a honey bee in flight” (Ellis and Palmer, 2016).
A new paper indicates the rise in CO2 concentration occurred well after the Northern Hemisphere’s ocean circulation changes drove the abrupt warming (~11,700 years ago) that ended the last ice age – a lag that effectively leaves no causal role for CO2 during deglaciation.
It is thought that the Northern Hemisphere experienced only ephemeral glaciations from the Late Eocene to the Early Pliocene epochs (about 38 to 4 million years ago), and that the onset of extensive glaciations did not occur until about 3 million years ago. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this increase in Northern Hemisphere glaciation during the Late Pliocene. Here we use a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model and an ice-sheet model to assess the impact of the proposed driving mechanisms for glaciation and the influence of orbital variations on the development of the Greenland ice sheet in particular. We find that Greenland glaciation is mainly controlled by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Late Pliocene. By contrast, our model results suggest that climatic shifts associated with the tectonically driven closure of the Panama seaway, with the termination of a permanent El Niño state or with tectonic uplift are not large enough to contribute significantly to the growth of the Greenland ice sheet; moreover, we find that none of these processes acted as a priming mechanism for glacial inception triggered by variations in the Earth’s orbit.
Real vegetation development in southern Africa takes a very different course than claimed by climate models
By Die kalte Sonne
(German translated by P Gosselin)
Climate models provide answers to all conceivable questions about the future. Political decision-makers are grateful for this information because they can make their plans accordingly.
But are the forecasts derived from models correct at all?
A research team led by Timm Hoffman has now compared the model projections with real vegetation development in southern Africa using historical photos. The sobering result: Nature has mostly developed quite differently than assumed by the models. In contrast to the model assumptions, no significant long-term trend in precipitation could be observed. Vegetation belts, which were supposed to shrink, ended up expanding. Confidence in the models is correspondingly low.
Political planning or even CO2 damage calculations based on the simulations are not possible. Here is the abstract of the work published in the journal Anthropocene in March 2019:
Southern Africa vegetation expanding, images show. Source: here.
People often say that we’re heading into the unknown with regards to CO2 and the planet. They say we can’t know, for example, what a 2°C warming will do because we can’t do the experiment. This is seen as important because for unknown reasons, people have battened on to “2°C” as being the scary temperature rise that we’re told we have to avoid at all costs.
But actually, as it turns out, we have already done the experiment. Below I show the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. In addition, there are a lot of stations in Europe that have been taking record for a long time. This gives us lots of good data.
So without further ado, here’s the record of the average European temperature.
La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse