New Paper suggests we know little about ocean CO2 cycle

[jmotivator]

New paper finds that existing CO2 transfer data between ocean and atmosphere are all wrong as they sample water too deep, missing a key biological interaction at the Earth's surface.

The paper determines that either the ocean is less of a CO2 sink than before or a greater contributor to atmospheric CO2 than previously thought.

.... so we are still finding major flaws in our understanding about our planets CO2 cycles... but the climate that is supposedly driven by that CO2 is settled.

Uh huh.

 

[Deuce]

The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?

 

[Jack Hays]

New paper finds that existing CO2 transfer data between ocean and atmosphere are all wrong as they sample water too deep, missing a key biological interaction at the Earth's surface.

The paper determines that either the ocean is less of a CO2 sink than before or a greater contributor to atmospheric CO2 than previously thought.

.... so we are still finding major flaws in our understanding about our planets CO2 cycles... but the climate that is supposedly driven by that CO2 is settled.

Uh huh.

Yup. The endgame is at hand.

[h=2]Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed[/h] Posted on September 4, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Note: Between flaccid climate sensitivity, ENSO driving “the pause”, and now this, it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.
From a Technical University of Denmark press release comes what looks to be a significant confirmation of Svensmark’s theory of temperature modulation on Earth by cosmic ray interactions. The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here. The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays, and warmer temperatures. Now the sun has gone into a record slump, and there are predictions of cooler temperatures ahead This new and important paper is published in Physics Letters A. – Anthony
Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation
Researchers in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are hard on the trail of a previously unknown molecular process that helps commonplace clouds to form. Tests in a large and highly instrumented reaction chamber in Lyngby, called SKY2, demonstrate that an existing chemical theory is misleading.
Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.
Continue reading →

 

[LowDown]

The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?

Nope, you are wrong. The abstract speaks of a strong gradient; the headline is right in line with that.

 

[LowDown]

New paper finds that existing CO2 transfer data between ocean and atmosphere are all wrong as they sample water too deep, missing a key biological interaction at the Earth's surface.

The paper determines that either the ocean is less of a CO2 sink than before or a greater contributor to atmospheric CO2 than previously thought.

.... so we are still finding major flaws in our understanding about our planets CO2 cycles... but the climate that is supposedly driven by that CO2 is settled.

Uh huh.

The ocean is the major source of CO2 variability, and it follows changes in the temperatures, acting as a source with warming and a sink with cooling. The amount of out and in gassing dwarfs anthropogenic sources. As in the ice core data, the CO2 levels are following the temperature, not the other way around.

However, there is a significant lag in this process. If global temperatures continue to follow a flat trajectory the CO2 levels will eventually start to change the trend to a more flat trajectory.

Here is a definite, prospective prediction to test the theory!

 

[Threegoofs]

The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?

I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.

 

[jmotivator]

Nope, you are wrong. The abstract speaks of a strong gradient; the headline is right in line with that.

Deuce and Threegoofs are incapable of discussing things rationally. When confronted by things that can't allow themselves to believe they immediately turn on their defense shields and try to discount it based on who said it since they can't hope to ever counter what was said.

Case in point: Twice now I have mentioned a study, and provided a link to the source of the actual published study for them to access if they find it important and both times what do they do? All they focus on trying to figure out where I heard about the study as if that is a sufficient counter to the study itself. Seriously, two severely limited intellects there.

 

[Jack Hays]

The abstract doesn't seem to suggest as major a flaw as you make it out to be. Somebody wrote that headline for you. Who was it and why did you take that interpretation?

I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.

Dodging the substance, again.:roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

Deuce and Threegoofs are incapable of discussing things rationally. When confronted by things that can't allow themselves to believe they immediately turn on their defense shields and try to discount it based on who said it since they can't hope to ever counter what was said.

Case in point: Twice now I have mentioned a study, and provided a link to the source of the actual published study for them to access if they find it important and both times what do they do? All they focus on trying to figure out where I heard about the study as if that is a sufficient counter to the study itself. Seriously, two severely limited intellects there.

Oh, I can assure you...I'm quite capable.

But discussing an abstract about CO2 diffusion in the oceans with someone who just saw the term pCO2 yeaterday is not a rational thing for anyone to do.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, I can assure you...I'm quite capable.

But discussing an abstract about CO2 diffusion in the oceans with someone who just saw the term pCO2 yeaterday is not a rational thing for anyone to do.

More running from the substance.:roll:

 

[jmotivator]

Oh, I can assure you...I'm quite capable.

But discussing an abstract about CO2 diffusion in the oceans with someone who just saw the term pCO2 yeaterday is not a rational thing for anyone to do.

You seem to forget that I have seen your capabilities on display here. I am thoroughly unimpressed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.

So for once in your life, how about explaining it so we can believe you understand science.

 

[Deuce]

Nope, you are wrong. The abstract speaks of a strong gradient; the headline is right in line with that.

No it isn't.

 

[Threegoofs]

The ocean is the major source of CO2 variability, and it follows changes in the temperatures, acting as a source with warming and a sink with cooling. The amount of out and in gassing dwarfs anthropogenic sources. As in the ice core data, the CO2 levels are following the temperature, not the other way around.

However, there is a significant lag in this process. If global temperatures continue to follow a flat trajectory the CO2 levels will eventually start to change the trend to a more flat trajectory.

Here is a definite, prospective prediction to test the theory!

So you are saying that CO2 out gassing from the ocean will be responsible for the warming?

But...you said CO2 doesn't cause warming!

Or are you saying that the CO2 in the air, a known greenhouse gas, will exacerbate out gassing from the ocean and cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

No! That can't be true because you don't WANT to believe that!

So what you are saying is that you have little to no idea of why this makes a big difference, but gosh darn it, it must mean those durn smarty pants scientists don't know what they're talking about.

 

[gslack]

So for once in your life, how about explaining it so we can believe you understand science.

LOL, like that will happen..

 

[gslack]

I'm guessing WUWT. I'm pretty sure motivator has no idea what pCO2 is, much less what the abstract is saying.

I'm absolutely sure it is partial pressure CO2. Or the symbol assigned to the negative decadic logarithm of a given CO2 concentration. The term is often used in medical purposes, blood gas content, so and so forth. A person with with certain types of heart disease or under going some kind of therapy or treatment pertaining to their blood or cardiovascular system may be familair with it...

WOW, check out the big brain on gslack!

LOL Just Kidding, I only know because I got abrother has serious heart troubles.. That and I am nosey...

 

[gslack]

So you are saying that CO2 out gassing from the ocean will be responsible for the warming?

But...you said CO2 doesn't cause warming!

Or are you saying that the CO2 in the air, a known greenhouse gas, will exacerbate out gassing from the ocean and cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

No! That can't be true because you don't WANT to believe that!

So what you are saying is that you have little to no idea of why this makes a big difference, but gosh darn it, it must mean those durn smarty pants scientists don't know what they're talking about.

LOL, you don't understand what he said do you...

Read it again, if you get it, you will kick yourself... Think carefully... "Flat trajectory"

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL, you don't understand what he said do you...

Read it again, if you get it, you will kick yourself... Think carefully... "Flat trajectory"

I guess you can't explain it either.

 

[gslack]

I guess you can't explain it either.

LOL,I gave you a hint.. "flat trajectory" Want another?

"If global temperatures continue to follow a flat trajectory the CO2 levels will eventually start to change the trend to a more flat trajectory."

Read it again and take into account he also said this in that same post..."As in the ice core data, the CO2 levels are following the temperature, not the other way around."

And that's all the help I'm giving you... It's not that hard, and you're supposed to be a medical researcher or teacher, er whatever.. Not to mention you keep implying how much smarter you are than everybody else here. And then there's the constant reminder that you are in (or on) medicine... Shouldn't require an explanation from your claimed inferiors..

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL,I gave you a hint.. "flat trajectory" Want another?

"If global temperatures continue to follow a flat trajectory the CO2 levels will eventually start to change the trend to a more flat trajectory."

Read it again and take into account he also said this in that same post..."As in the ice core data, the CO2 levels are following the temperature, not the other way around."

And that's all the help I'm giving you... It's not that hard, and you're supposed to be a medical researcher or teacher, er whatever.. Not to mention you keep implying how much smarter you are than everybody else here. And then there's the constant reminder that you are in (or on) medicine... Shouldn't require an explanation from your claimed inferiors..

Like I said, you can't explain it.

Or did you forget that we can actually quantify the CO2 we release into the air via anthropogenic sources?

 

[gslack]

Like I said, you can't explain it.

Or did you forget that we can actually quantify the CO2 we release into the air via anthropogenic sources?

No silly medical professional, you don't know so of course no one else possibly can.. We know you think you're a genius and the rest of us are ignorant, you tell us all the time.. But sadly you never seem to show it here...

You've gotten enough help from me now, if you're so brilliant you can explain it, if not well then you aren't so brilliant after all are ya.. Nope just a normal old forum poster like the rest of us...OH NO!!!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Like I said, you can't explain it.

Or did you forget that we can actually quantify the CO2 we release into the air via anthropogenic sources?

I understood 100% what he said, and agree. It's simple science. You shouldn't be in these debates since you can't follow.