CO2 Concentrations by Hemisphere

[Dorje]

I recently read an article that stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at a geologically rapid rate and that the air temperature over the North Pole is doing the same. The link is below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/

I was wondering if any data have been collected regarding CO2 concentrations by hemisphere. Is it possible for CO2 concentration to be greater in the northern hemisphere than the southern, since the majority of industrialized nations are in the northern hemisphere? Or is CO2 concentration equally distributed over the globe?

 

[deckart]

From what I've read on the forums here, CO2 concentrations are equally distributed. Also, the idea of global warming from CO2 emissions by humans seems to be a media hype with no real scientific evidence.

Read the entire topic and links in the post titled: "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

 

[Bystander]

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/gallery_co2.html

 

[pattylou]

From what I've read on the forums here, CO2 concentrations are equally distributed. Also, the idea of global warming from CO2 emissions by humans seems to be a media hype with no real scientific evidence.

Read the entire topic and links in the post titled: "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

No, that's Andre's spin on it. He spends so much time promoting that view here, that any reasonable individual with anything else going on in their life won't be able to debunk it all without abandoning their spouses and children and work. He also uses "bait and switch" and other tactics to keep from putting any single item to rest.

If you get your news from a single source, you will not be seeing the objective picture. ("Physics Forums" would qualify as a single source. An individual on Physics Forums, even moreso.) My advice to you, Deckart, is to read the scholarly articles and decide for yourself what the consensus is, and why the data supports it.

Even Bush says that human emissions contribute to warming.

"In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has
sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and
far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the
American environment. In the report, the administration for the
first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming. It says
the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send
heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
--Andrew Revkin, The New York Times, 3 June 2002

(The website asked that I respect copyright. If you wish to find it, enter the keywords "bush admits anthropogenic CO2" and take the third hit... or do your own search!)

To the original poster: CO2, in mylimited understanding, does appear dispersed over the planet. So here's a question for you: What is the single most distinct feature of the poles?

If we lose that feature, what might happen to temperatures at the poles?

in other words, is warming likely to be more pronounced at the poles than in other regions?

if you have trouble with these questions, I'll post again.

 

[deckart]

Good link. I summize from those charts that the amount of CO2 is rising 1 ppm every year. The chart I was looking at started from 1955 - present and the average is extremely linear. That's what makes me wonder if it is a natural event or a man-made event.

Excuse the sarcasm but I just had a thought. I could fill a small room with 1 million pennies then take a picture. And every year I could open the door and throw a penny in it for fifty years. Then take another picture and compare them. LOL

OK, the truth is the difference is 340 ppm in 1955 and 370 in 2005. That is a change of 8% in 50 yrs. If the trend continues another 50 yrs we are looking at 16%. So over 100 years there is a change of 16%. Does this create the "Green House" effect so worried about? I'm have not convinced... yet. Is this a natural or man-made phenomenon? I don't know.

 

[pattylou]

The debate is more involved than that.

For one thing, the ppm back in 1850 were around 250 - 270 (IIRC). For another thing, there are more GHG than just CO2. There are additional factors, such as climate dysjunction and others, the point is the question isn't solely CO2. For another thing, there are unquestionably natural cycles like warming and cooling oceans (multidecadal cycles) that affect temperature measurements.

Your penny analogy is not the best (sorry) - we are talking parts per million... and the amplified effect of raising those ppm 5 or 10 or 20 or 40%. Now, you may think 5% "sounds safe enough" and you may think 40% "sounds like it might be a problem..."

But the people best suited to determine whether 1% or 80% or something in between is a problem... are the atmospheric chemists and physicists. That isn't me, and frankly it isn't you. If you stick to your "sounds safe enough" approach you need to acknowledge that you are going with gut instinct, not science.

 

[deckart]

pattylou... you bug me. I hear this nagging little voice in my head when I read your posts. You seem to have assigned me to some "enemy" category in your little brain. You've insulted, Andre, because he doesn't agree with your political views not because you have any idea of how he is coming to his conclusions. And, he obviously knows what he is talking about.

The reason I added the third paragraph is because I am trying get a fair perspective of the topic. And, who the hell are you to tell me that I'm not qualified to come to rational conclusions from data? For crying out loud, woman.

I've looked at these graphs and I don't see anything that refers to the year 1850. I may be wrong (give me a link please) but I have trouble believing they had equipment able to determine particulates of gases in the atmosphere in parts per million in 1850.

Anyhow, could you tone down your emotions and argue facts instead of straight opinion, for the sake of this thread?

 

[pattylou]

The reason I added the third paragraph is because I am trying get a fair perspective of the topic. And, who the hell are you to tell me that I'm not qualified to come to rational conclusions from data? For crying out loud, woman.
:

You said you're a student on another thread.

 

[pattylou]

pattylou... you bug me. I hear this nagging little voice in my head when I read your posts. You seem to have assigned me to some "enemy" category in your little brain. You've insulted, Andre, because he doesn't agree with your political views not because you have any idea of how he is coming to his conclusions. And, he obviously knows what he is talking about.

The reason I added the third paragraph is because I am trying get a fair perspective of the topic. And, who the hell are you to tell me that I'm not qualified to come to rational conclusions from data? For crying out loud, woman.

I've looked at these graphs and I don't see anything that refers to the year 1850. I may be wrong (give me a link please) but I have trouble believing they had equipment able to determine particulates of gases in the atmosphere in parts per million in 1850.

Anyhow, could you tone down your emotions and argue facts instead of straight opinion, for the sake of this thread?

I don't know Andre's political views. He isn't American, so I don't pay attention.

More in a minute...

 

[deckart]

I've never said that I am a student. I've been out of school and working as a hydraulic systems designer for a number of years.

Anyway, until you have something constructive to say, I'm not responding to your posts.

 

[pattylou]

I deleted this post because you aren't a student, but it did have some bits in it.

Anyway, show me where I expresed emotion. And consider your use of the phrase "your little brain."

 

[pattylou]

I've never said that I am a student. I've been out of school and working as a hydraulic systems designer for a number of years.

Anyway, until you have something constructive to say, I'm not responding to your posts.

Oh. I thought you were a student. Sorry. It makes sense that I sounded condescending, to you, given that you're not 18 years old but I thought you were and so on.

Look we got off on the wrong foot. Try reading through the thread again, with me in the part of "woman who mistakenly thinks Deckart is a young student."

Or something like that. We are certainly capable of civilised discourse, and I for one am all for it.

 

[Dorje]

CO2, in mylimited understanding, does appear dispersed over the planet.

I was wondering if anyone has measured differences in concentration by region. It would make for an interesting investigation to see if CO2 is more concentrated in the northern hemisphere vs. southern.

So here's a question for you: What is the single most distinct feature of the poles?

If we lose that feature, what might happen to temperatures at the poles?

in other words, is warming likely to be more pronounced at the poles than in other regions?

The most distinctive feature of the poles is that they are white, which means that some solar energy is reflected back into space. A cascade scenario could potentially play out in the future:

1. More anthropomorphic CO2 emissions --> warmer Earth.
2. Warmer Earth --> melting poles.
3. Melting poles --> less albedo.
4. Less albedo --> more solar energy input.
5. More solar energy input --> even warmer Earth.

Of course, evaporation and cloud cover could change with the warming Earth, and could even increase the albedo to the point that the Earth may actually cool down (maybe even an ice age?). How accurate are these scenarios?

 

[deckart]

Oh. I thought you were a student. Sorry. It makes sense that I sounded condescending, to you, given that you're not 18 years old but I thought you were and so on.

Look we got off on the wrong foot. Try reading through the thread again, with me in the part of "woman who mistakenly thinks Deckart is a young student."

Or something like that. We are certainly capable of civilised discourse, and I for one am all for it.

Ok, then, you brain is no longer little to me now

But, now I have to ask, what's with the condescending attitude toward students? (Other than they can be cocky little know-it-alls?)

 

[deckart]

I was wondering if anyone has measured differences in concentration by region. It would make for an interesting investigation to see if CO2 is more concentrated in the northern hemisphere vs. southern.



The most distinctive feature of the poles is that they are white, which means that some solar energy is reflected back into space. A cascade scenario could potentially play out in the future:

1. More anthropomorphic CO2 emissions --> warmer Earth.
2. Warmer Earth --> melting poles.
3. Melting poles --> less albedo.
4. Less albedo --> more solar energy input.
5. More solar energy input --> even warmer Earth.

Of course, evaporation and cloud cover could change with the warming Earth, and could even increase the albedo to the point that the Earth may actually cool down (maybe even an ice age?). How accurate are these scenarios?

This really is the BIG question. Does increased CO2 directly cause, all factors considered, global warming. It is no question in a controlled environment there is a warming effect but with all the many factors involved, is it the cause of global warming? The polar ice caps have been recending long before we were a civilization. Are we a factor? If so, could the results be catastrophic, or very minor?

 

[pattylou]

I was wondering if anyone has measured differences in concentration by region. It would make for an interesting investigation to see if CO2 is more concentrated in the northern hemisphere vs. southern.



The most distinctive feature of the poles is that they are white, which means that some solar energy is reflected back into space. A cascade scenario could potentially play out in the future:

1. More anthropomorphic CO2 emissions --> warmer Earth.
2. Warmer Earth --> melting poles.
3. Melting poles --> less albedo.
4. Less albedo --> more solar energy input.
5. More solar energy input --> even warmer Earth.

Of course, evaporation and cloud cover could change with the warming Earth, and could even increase the albedo to the point that the Earth may actually cool down (maybe even an ice age?). How accurate are these scenarios?

In my understanding, the poles will warm faster relative to other areas of the earth, because they are losing their reflective snow, as you say far more eloquently. And your link looks like a link I was reading the other day (yesterday?) on Science Daily:

The resulting atmospheric heating in the region of northern Alaska is equivalent to what might be observed if there was a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Continuation of this trend could further amplify atmospheric heating in the region by two to seven times and could possibly contribute to broader changes in climate.

<snip>

The result is a positive feedback loop that could continue to raise temperatures in the region and further lengthen the snow-free period each year.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050926081228.htm

Another conributor to warming at the poles may be the huge quantity of biomass frozen in the tundra, which is now more readily available for decomposition leading to a localised release of methane and CO2. Presumably this would disperse, although I don't know how quickly. Also presumably it would be seasonal. We ought to be able to measure it - and perhaps since we haven't seen reports on this sort of seasonal increase in the arctic (have we?), perhaps it is quickly dispersed. (I am familiar with reports that show a burst of CO2/methane following wetting of dry soils, due to a burst of decomposition, but this doesn't address the dispersal question.)

I'm sure you're aware that the oceans appear to have absorbed "most" of the CO2 that we have generated. (I don't know the exact percentage offhand but 50-70% rings a bell.)<begin utter speculation> Thus, it would seem that there *is* some spatial divvying up of the CO2, at least between the oceans and the atmosphere, and perhaps (?) if the oceans are absorbing a fair amount, then maybe (?) there are localised pockets... of slightly higher or lower levels, depending on the chemistry at the ocean/air interface...</end utter speculation>

Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Tangentially, we did spot an interesting article in Science today, I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack yours.

 

[pattylou]

But, now I have to ask, what's with the condescending attitude toward students?

I'll make that the focus of my meditation tonight.

(Other than they can be cocky little know-it-alls?)

Odds are that's what I'll come up with.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Another conributor to warming at the poles may be the huge quantity of biomass frozen in the tundra, which is now more readily available for decomposition leading to a localised release of methane and CO2. Presumably this would disperse, although I don't know how quickly. Also presumably it would be seasonal. We ought to be able to measure it - and perhaps since we haven't seen reports on this sort of seasonal increase in the arctic (have we?)(snip)

We have --- see the link to NOAA's CO₂ data. The seasonal dependendence is such that the high Arctic concentrations are seen in winter.

 

[pattylou]

We have --- see the link to NOAA's CO₂ data. The seasonal dependendence is such that the high Arctic concentrations are seen in winter.

Thanks, bystander. I do sincerely appreciate that.

So CO2 *isn't* evenly dispersed?

Also, your reply sounds like the peak in the winter has been demonstrated to be due to the biomass decomposing (by virtue of the fact that you responded directly to that - in my quote.) Does NOAA make that claim, or are we starting to mix apples and oranges here? I don't know your views on the "debate" or your educational status or anything - so if I sound condescending please forgive me.

It appears that you latched onto "seasonal change in GHG" without appreciation for whether or not that seasonal change has been demonstrated to be due to increased decomposition in the arctic. As far as I know, we do not have a sense as to how much biomass is now available for decomposition relative to ten years ago, for example.

Is this characterization more or less on the money?

I went to your earlier link assuming that was the NOAA CO2 data you mentioned. Which graph should I look at? There are about 8.

Nothing in this post is intended as anything other than a desire to keep the discussion focused and data-based.

 

[Bystander]

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures/co2rug_mlo looks to be the current active link to NOAA. A latitudinal-seasonal variability of 10s ppm in a 300 plus ppm total concentration is as uniform a distribution in a dynamic system as you're going to see, given that the residence time in the atmosphere is 3-5a, comparable to an atmospheric mixing time of 2-3a (last time I checked).

The Arctic winter isn't noted for high biological activity. If you check around on the NOAA-CMDL site for methane "rugs" you'll notice the same pattern --- peak concentrations at high latitudes in the dead of winter. Your other hint for understanding the seasonal variation is to note the inversion of the pattern at the equator, i.e., peak concentrations during the Austral winter, and the smaller amplitude of the seasonal oscillation in the southern hemisphere.

 

[Andre]

Another reason is that the North Atlantic part of the ocean is an effective CO2 sink area, whereas the equatorial area is a CO2 source. When the northern part freezes over partly, then the CO2 exchange with the ocean ceases. This influence may be much greater than the reduced biologic activity.

 

[Andre]

About melting poles, that's only 50% of the story. Only 50% of all poles are warming up. The other 50% ain't. This may be a little more than a single source. So the nice quick and simple

1. More anthropomorphic CO2 emissions --> warmer Earth.
2. Warmer Earth --> melting poles.
3. Melting poles --> less albedo.
4. Less albedo --> more solar energy input.
5. More solar energy input --> even warmer Earth.

is not a dominant process if at all.

Remember:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=757514#post757514

Nothing unusual going on, really.

 

[Dorje]

About melting poles, that's only 50% of the story. Only 50% of all poles are warming up. The other 50% ain't. This may be a little more than a single source. So the nice quick and simple

I recall the story about the Antarctica cooling, and in conjunction with the warming of the Arctic, this led me to think that there may be an imbalance in CO2 in the hemispheres as one possible explanation. One side of planet can warm, and the other side can cool, but the average can still increase as time marches on. It is my understanding that the average temperature of the globe has increased over the past century.

Another conributor to warming at the poles may be the huge quantity of biomass frozen in the tundra

That's interesting. The biomass factor in the Arctic area may play a role in the difference; I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if there is a similar biomass under the Antarctica areas?

Nothing unusual going on, really.

CO2 levels at the present time appear unusual, based on the current data. Even if some evidence were presented that demonstrates that historic CO2 levels were either the same as or greater than the present time's, it would lead to a nagging question, 'Why was CO2 so high during such and such epoch?' With today's CO2 increases, there is a clear source for it: burning of organic matter.

 

[pattylou]

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures/co2rug_mlo looks to be the current active link to NOAA. A latitudinal-seasonal variability of 10s ppm in a 300 plus ppm total concentration is as uniform a distribution in a dynamic system as you're going to see, given that the residence time in the atmosphere is 3-5a, comparable to an atmospheric mixing time of 2-3a (last time I checked).

The Arctic winter isn't noted for high biological activity. If you check around on the NOAA-CMDL site for methane "rugs" you'll notice the same pattern --- peak concentrations at high latitudes in the dead of winter. Your other hint for understanding the seasonal variation is to note the inversion of the pattern at the equator, i.e., peak concentrations during the Austral winter, and the smaller amplitude of the seasonal oscillation in the southern hemisphere.

Thank you. It sounds then, that the peak in winter is likely to be independent of biomass decomposition, i.e. we don't know what contribution biomass contribution has made or will make to CO2 in the Arctic. Matter will certainly decompose, but CO2 concentrations may disperse and local levels may be governed by another process altogether.

 

[pattylou]

That's interesting. The biomass factor in the Arctic area may play a role in the difference; I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if there is a similar biomass under the Antarctica areas? .

I would *guess* that there is even more so (isn't the land mass in the antarctic circle even greater than the land mass in the arctic circle?) . Any organic matter that was trapped when the antarctic became covered with ice, will not have decomposed much, and could do so upon a thaw.

 

[Andre]

CO2 levels at the present time appear unusual, based on the current data.

Ice cores show lower CO2 levels 200-280 ppm but as a contrast paleo leaf stomata counts (reacting to CO2 fertilisation) suggest much higher fluctuations and peak levels throughout the investigated parts of the Holocene

Kouwenberg L.L.R., et al (2005). Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last Millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology, 33 (1), 33-36.

Wagner, F et al (1996) A natural experiment on plant acclimation: Lifetime stomatal
frequency response of an individual tree to annual atmospheric CO2 increase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 11705–11708, October 1996 Ecology

Wagner, F et al (1999), Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Science 18 June 1999; 284: 1971-1973

Wagner, F et al. (2004). Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency analysis. Virtual Journal Geobiology, volume 3, Issue 9, September 2004, section 2B.

*****

Even if some evidence were presented that demonstrates that historic CO2 levels were either the same as or greater than the present time's, it would lead to a nagging question, 'Why was CO2 so high during such and such epoch?' With today's CO2 increases, there is a clear source for it: burning of organic matter

Considering the global carbon budget the atmospheric carbon content has increased with 161 Pentagram from the original 590 Pg whilst the oceanic CO2 has increased with about 110 Pg at around 38,000 Pg, a quarter percent. Consequently what happens in the oceans is important for the carbon in the atmosphere. Change in vertical currents have a mega impact. Think of a beer bottle. If the pressure is realized the CO2 comes out of solution, Same happens at an oceanic convection current but in orders of magnitude that can seriously disrupt atmospheric CO2. Biota play little role in that.

For the numbers:

Sabine, Christopher L, Richard A. Feely et al. 2004. The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2.. Science Vol. 305, No 5682, pp. 367-371, July 16, 2004

This is what I find in my home, PL, not oil compagnies.

 

[pattylou]

Dorje:

A quick 2 second post from news today from NASA; this bears on the arctic ice (it's basically "continuing data")

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html

Satellites Continue to See Decline In Arctic Sea Ice In 2005

09.28.05

Researchers from NASA, the National Snow and Ice Data Center and others using satellite data have detected a significant loss in Arctic sea ice this year.

On Sept. 21, 2005, sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record. Incorporating the 2005 minimum using satellite data going back to 1978, with a projection for ice growth in the last few days of this September, brings the estimated decline in Arctic sea ice to 8.5 percent per decade over the 27 year satellite record.

Article continues, with an animation of the ice retreat. This doesn't bear on anthropogenic "forcing" directly, it merely reports a continuing warming trend.

 

[Mk]

No, that's Andre's spin on it. He spends so much time promoting that view here, that any reasonable individual with anything else going on in their life won't be able to debunk it all without abandoning their spouses and children and work. He also uses "bait and switch" and other tactics to keep from putting any single item to rest.

In this and the Key-Global-Warming-Evaporates-argument-thread, you responded, on average, more frequently than Andre.

dispersed over the planet. So here's a question for you: What is the single most distinct feature of the poles?

Uhm... its not dispersed!

I'm good!

You said you're a student on another thread.

I take this very seriously. If the man knows what he is talking about, cites credible sources, uses correct grammar, syntax, spelling, and uses appropriate lexicon and jargon, I don't care who he is, he SHALL NOT BE BASTARDIZED!

Ice cores show lower CO2 levels 200-280 ppm but as a contrast paleo leaf stomata counts (reacting to CO2 fertilisation) suggest much higher fluctuations and peak levels throughout the investigated parts of the Holocene

Kouwenberg L.L.R., et al (2005). Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last Millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology, 33 (1), 33-36.

Wagner, F et al (1996) A natural experiment on plant acclimation: Lifetime stomatal
frequency response of an individual tree to annual atmospheric CO2 increase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 11705–11708, October 1996 Ecology

Wagner, F et al (1999), Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Science 18 June 1999; 284: 1971-1973

Wagner, F et al. (2004). Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency analysis. Virtual Journal Geobiology, volume 3, Issue 9, September 2004, section 2B.

Sabine, Christopher L, Richard A. Feely et al. 2004. The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2.. Science Vol. 305, No 5682, pp. 367-371, July 16, 2004

Andre, you're a freakin idiot, you have no sources cited, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

But seriously, I don't think we thank Andre enough -- who is seemingly constantly under fire -- for being a courageous soul, and very dedicated PF member (as I can see from the free avatar, and 1000+ posts) who steps forward often and eagerly to teach us something new, as well as speaking his mind on what he believes in.

But also, pattylou, a very well informed dedicated member of PF's Earth domain (and possibly others, I don't know), who quickly responds with good sources, to any question one might have.

 

[Andre]

Relax Mk, it's all just an exercise in critical unbiased thinking but much more importantly, about communicating the results of that process. I'm sure we all can have a good glas of whatever sometimes reflecting on this AGW dispute.

Pattylou, I see the figures about the minimum Arctic sea ice. However I have also found this somewhere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

which seems to show that there have been more low records. 1999 for instance or 1993, also allegedly composed with NASA data, which makes one wonder who is fooling who.

 

[pattylou]

In this and the Key-Global-Warming-Evaporates-argument-thread, you responded, on average, more frequently than Andre.

?? Uh, OK? I don't undersatnd your point. How is frequency of response a measure of anything beside interest in investing in a particular topic?

Uhm... its not dispersed!

I'm good!

Great! A reference would be good too. And, you snipped the first part of
my quote. This is a major no-no as it changes the intent of the statement. The full sentence read: "CO2, in my limited understanding, does appear dispersed over the planet."

I take this very seriously. If the man knows what he is talking about, cites credible sources, uses correct grammar, syntax, spelling, and uses appropriate lexicon and jargon, I don't care who he is, he SHALL NOT BE BASTARDIZED!

Great. Are you referring to Deckart, (no references provided, ) or Andre (English-as-second-language glitches)? Your characterization doesn't describe either one of them. Note this is not casting aspersions on their characters, I am sure both are more intelligent than myself and may well have an excellent grasp of the climate arguments.

How many of the links do you follow, that Andre posts? Can you put an estimate on it for me? How would you assess those links?

Thanks for giving this thought, MK.