Martin A

" well understood" in the sense normally used in physical sciences."

We have come back to the " impossible accuracy" straw man.

The physical sciences you refer to are studied in laboratories or particle accelerators. You can measure to the limits of your equipment, control all your variables and do as many replicates as your funding allows.

I would love to see you duplicate the measurement quality of your laboratory science in the field, perhaps in the middle of a peat bog in the rain, on the deck of a ship in a gale or in the darkness of an Antarctic snowstorm at -30C.

I would love to see you duplicate the measurement quality of your laboratory science in the field, perhaps in the middle of a peat bog in the rain, on the deck of a ship in a gale or in the darkness of an Antarctic snowstorm at -30C.

Oct 19, 2015 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Not knowing what you said, you said it. It is both a valid reason for the use of computer models, and a stark reminder of their limitations.

Martin A

There are three main reservoirs of carbon in the short-term carbon cycle. These are the biosphere, the atmosphere and the ocean. They trend to equilibrium.

Think of three connected tanks. They settle to the same level. Add water to one tank. The level in that tank rises at first, then drops back partway as the levels rise in the other tanks.

If you add extra CO2 to one reservoir, it tends to distribute over all three. Thus extra CO2 added to the atmosphere does not all stay in the atmosphere. Some of it is taken up by the biosphere and some dissolves in the ocean. This is why the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is about half the rate of human production.

If Salby is claiming that the increase in biomass invalidates the science, he is mistaken.He has made a normal and expected change into another straw man.

Radical Rodent

The correct term is radiative forcing.

It is more technically accurate, and indicates what is actually measured. It is also less transparent to a layman.

"Greenhouse effect" is less technically precise but better describes the end result.

The soil under a greenhouse is warmer than without the greenhouse. The surface under an atmosphere with greenhouse gases is warmer than the surface without them.. That is the point that the term is intended to convey.

You are getting pedantic in your old age. I remember when you used to complain about my pedantic distinction between theory and hypothesis.

There are three main reservoirs of carbon in the short-term carbon cycle. These are the biosphere, the atmosphere and the ocean. They trend to equilibrium.

Think of three connected tanks. They settle to the same level. Add water to one tank. The level in that tank rises at first, then drops back partway as the levels rise in the other tanks.

If you add extra CO2 to one reservoir, it tends to distribute over all three.
Oct 19, 2015 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If you believe your own words (and I often suspect you don't) you are not even close to thinking about it correctly, EM.

The land based carbon-sink fluxes are nowhere near close to equilibrium with the deep oceanic ones. Saying they "trend to equilibrium" says almost nothing. You need to get away from this economist-type belief that positing a potential equilibrium means that an equilibrium exists.

If I urinate into your draining bath at the drain hole, it really doesn't matter to you as long as you are sitting upstream of the drainhole. Equilibrium is often irrelevant.

Even more heat is hiding in the ocean.

Radical Rodent re your

"theory that high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are indicative that life does not exist, and has never existed, on a planet"

Life existed on earth in the form of bacteria for at least a billion years, perhaps as much as two billion years before the Phanerozoic era and their excreted oxygen reacted with iron to form banded iron formations. When the available iron was oxidised the excess oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere, thus starting to dilute the Nitrogen and CO2 concentrations until O2 comprised about 20-30 % of the atmosphere by the Carboniferous

It is not apparent that during the era of Banded Iron formation accumulation, the Proterozoic, there was any marked change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration ( which would have been high - perhaps as much as 10,000 ppm). If this is the case it would indicate that life can exist, perhaps for as much as a couple of billion years, in conjunction with high atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Paleoclimate Buff/Radical Rodent
For clarification what do you mean by "High concentrations"? PC has 1% as high, RR I assume you're talking >10%? As the air in submarines runs at 8000ppm I'm in the >10% camp as being high. It's a complex thing but I believe that concentrations of 10% CO2 will cause death in humans in less than an hour. Other lifeforms can survive this I think.

I like the hypothesis for carbon based lifeforms, it will moving into Theory territory soon as we're now looking at planets and moons in the Solar System evermore closely and also exo-plants are being viewed in increasing detail.

Dung/RR keep in mind that CO2 comes out of your body (and huge swathes of the biosphere) at about 4%. That is 40,000 ppm, into an environment of 400 ppm.

I think the best analogy is to compare it to how water/sewage drains from house. It does so under gravity until it finds its 'local level'. If your house is on top of Ben Nevis, Snowdon or Scafell Pike, you really don't care about sea-level or flooding backing up your drains. With regard to atmospheric CO2 changes and toxicity, much of the living planet is effectively living on top of Mt Everest.

Even more of the living planet sucks up CO2 as hard as it can. It is difficult to drown a fish by adding some extra water to the lake. Even dishonest people like the vwwwussell thing know this full well.