NOAA busted re-writing temperature History.

[lost_shaman]

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

P.S.:  black-body radiation works well for water surfaces, especially large water surfaces, as air temperature 1.5m above the surface is usually the same as the surface temp.  But over land, you never know what the camera is seeing.  Air temp may be 40 degrees F above a snow surface.  The satellite records the temperature of the snow, but can't see the warm air above it.  Add a leaf canopy with its numerous gaps and you get a mix of leaf and ground temps (A dead leaf in the sunshine above a snow surface can reach temps of 80 degrees C.).  Those correlate with air temps, so one can use them to estimate air temps, but black-body radiation doesn't work well for land surfaces.

We are trying to measure the real world, not some laboratory sample.

 

Doug you are wrong again! Satellites that measure outgoing LWIR measure this at the top of the atmosphere where it escapes to space not the surface of the Earth where the atmosphere is opaque at LWIR wavelengths. Satellites that measure surface temperatures measure microwave emissions from molecular Oxygen in the first 8 km of the surface as microwave travel through the atmosphere basically unimpeded, due to strong vertical mixing in that deepest layer we can tell surface temps.

[lost_shaman]

On 4/21/2018 at 3:36 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Here is an article by a physical chemist that delves into the absorption and re-emission characteristics of carbon dioxide:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Physical-Chemistry-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Absorption.html

One-half of re-emitted radiation is directed back toward the earth's surface.  Thus, CO2 acts effectively as an insulating agent, keeping half of incoming infrared radiation (that strikes a CO2 molecule) from escaping back into space.  It is this insulating effect that is warming the planet, not CO2 directly warming the atmosphere, as LS seems to think.

Here is the Paragraph in the article that you could have simply quoted but choose not to for whatever reason.

Quote

Therefore we can determine the amount of energy absorbed and reemitted by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because one half of the reemitted radiation comes back to the earth (is the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas flux), this flux is equal to one half the Planck flux in the absorbing interval multiplied by one minus the diffuse, broadband transmittance. Knowing the earth’s average temperature at some initial time and the expected increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (the Keeling curve) we can calculate the earth’s average temperature difference for these two times as follows. The energy leaving at the final time equals the energy entering at that time (for the reason discussed previously) and, because we know by how much that energy is increased by the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, we know by how much the earth’s temperature is increased by that effect. When the calculation is done, as in GWPPT6, the conclusion is that the earth’s temperature is currently rising by 0.014 degrees per year because of the greenhouse gaseffect of the additional carbon dioxide entering the earth’s atmosphere

Ok. the first statement, "Therefore we can determine the amount of energy absorbed and reemitted by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." This is a bogus statement. They can calculate the amount of energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule in a lab or on 'Paper', but actual atmospheric CO2 behaves differently. It is diffuse in the atmosphere at different temperatures and pressures. For example high in the atmosphere where temperatures and pressures are very low CO2 will re-emit more of it's LWIR absorbed energy. However, at lower altitudes and higher temperatures and pressures, CO2 loses almost all of it potentially absorbed energy due to colliding with molecular Oxygen and Nitrogen and all the other gases and aerosols in the lower atmosphere. This action heats the "Air" and keeps the Earth from freezing! The 'Air' (atmosphere) then also gives off it's own black body radiation again where only a small amount of this CO2 can react with and the process repeats at some lesser extent at higher ASL values. This first statement is wrong they can not determine what the statement claims.

 

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

What you don't understand is arithmetic.  Temperatures and CO2 concentrations have different base values (the value of each variable when the other variable equals zero), so a simple ratio-proportion like you're using doesn't work.  Example:  273 degrees K = 0 degrees C = 32 degrees F.  Each of those scales produces a different proportional increase for CO2 ("doubled" is a proportional value).  Three different answers to the same question is no answer at all.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said all week. Pick one and we will go with it. I'm comfortable using all three. 

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

CO2 does contribute some direct warming to the atmosphere, but not nearly enough to account for temperature fluctuations.

You just now are catching on? The rest of the temperature fluctuations are caused by Water vapor and different forms of cloud types (including both water vapor and ice). There are also fluctuations in Aerosols and other trace greenhouse gases. Albedo fluctuations. ENSO cycles. Gulf stream. PDO.  I could go on. Take you're pick of all of the above and you have you're fluctuations that don't involve CO2. Did I mention the Sun? 

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So, water vapor is also having an effect. 

Ya think?

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have not tried to quantify this.

No but you know water vapor dwarfs CO2 and you adhere to a notion that nearly 100% of one degree F warming over 150 years is only contributable to an additional 120 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere?

[lost_shaman]

On 4/19/2018 at 2:46 PM, Essan said:

When it comes to global warming, who cares about less than 5% of the planet?   

The other 95% of the Planet that relies on us for almost everything.

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Ok. the first statement, "Therefore we can determine the amount of energy absorbed and reemitted by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." This is a bogus statement.

So you're trying to argue physical chemistry with a physical chemist.  Why do I think you don't stand a chance?

If you're going to do that, you're going to need to cite your references.

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said all week. Pick one and we will go with it. I'm comfortable using all three. 

Ratio-proportion doesn't work unless there is a point at which both variables are equal to zero at the same time.  Sure, you can multiply, divide and all that, but you won't get the correct answer.  So if numerical gibberish is what you're trying to produce, pick one and go right ahead.  Half of math is using the right model.

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You just now are catching on? The rest of the temperature fluctuations are caused by Water vapor and different forms of cloud types (including both water vapor and ice). There are also fluctuations in Aerosols and other trace greenhouse gases. Albedo fluctuations. ENSO cycles. Gulf stream. PDO.  I could go on. Take you're pick of all of the above and you have you're fluctuations that don't involve CO2. Did I mention the Sun? 

These are feedback loops.  They won't have any effect without increases in CO2.

El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are ocean currents.  All they do is move heat around.  Without CO2 to insulate the earth, causing temperature rise, there wouldn't be any excess heat for them to move.  You are mistaking effect for cause.

 

Yes.  The sun provides the energy that CO2 traps in the atmosphere.  Glad you finally figured that out.  Fluctuations in solar output have only minor effects on temperature.  I have the data for a regression that demonstrates that, but I have posted those before and you didn't understand them then.  Why would it be any different now?

Doug

[Doug1029]

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No but you know water vapor dwarfs CO2 and you adhere to a notion that nearly 100% of one degree F warming over 150 years is only contributable to an additional 120 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Warming has been about 1.4 degrees C. in the last 150 years.  That's 2.5 degrees F.  What did I say about you and arithmetic?

[CO₂] has increased from 315 ppm in 1959 to 410 today.  That's an increase of 95 ppm in 59 years.  Or, if you'd like to go back beyond the Keeling curve:  in 1868, [CO₂] would have been about 287 ppm, which gives an increase of 124 ppm in 150 years.  So that's a 124 ppm increase in [CO₂] causing a rise of 1.4 degrees C. (2.5 degrees F). in the last 150 years.  That's pretty much what Rheinhardt was saying.

What I'm saying is that the increased water vapor in the atmosphere is due to increasing warmth which would not have happened without the additional [CO₂].  [CO₂] is the first cause.  If it didn't change, nothing else would.

Doug

P.S.:  Those CO₂ concentrations are from that paper you posted way back when.

Doug

Edited April 23, 2018 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So you're trying to argue physical chemistry with a physical chemist.  Why do I think you don't stand a chance?

If you're going to do that, you're going to need to cite your references.

I already have been citing Reinhardt who is a physical chemist. Why are you adimate about confuscating the discussion here? Is that all you've got?

 

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

These are feedback loops.  They won't have any effect without increases in CO2.

El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are ocean currents.  All they do is move heat around.  Without CO2 to insulate the earth, causing temperature rise, there wouldn't be any excess heat for them to move.  You are mistaking effect for cause.

No. This is exactly where you and I completely disagree. Here you are basically leaving ZERO room in Temperature deviation over the last 150 years to natural variations in Climate! You are adhering to a concept of CO2 being the MAJOR driver of all Climate and that the Climates sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is extraordinarily high causing major positive feedback loops.

I simply disagree with you on those points. I think based on the science I've read that CO2 is a weak Greenhouse gas in the Earth's Atmosphere. I think based on what I've read that the Water vapor feedback to warmer temperatures in the Earth's Atmosphere are neutral if not slightly net negative. I think based on what I've read that fluctuations in Earth's albedo which are extremely hard to measure and can be as high as 2% on an annual basis can result in ~7 w/m2 which completely DWARFS anything that you could possibly contribute to CO2!

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Without CO2 to insulate the earth, causing temperature rise, there wouldn't be any excess heat for them to move.  You are mistaking effect for cause.

This is the most ridiculous of statements Doug! This proves you have no real understanding of the Planetary dynamics of the Earth or basic thermal dynamics! 

There is no need for CO2 to cause "excess" heat on the Earth for the Earth's heat to move in the way that it does. The Earth's Heat originates with the Shortwave Radiation from the Sun, this heat warms the surface most dramatically in the Tropics where the Earth receives basically direct sunlight all year round. This occurs because the Earth is basically spherical and Shortwave radiation from the Sun directly warms the Earth's surface both land and water. As you move towards higher latitudes toward the poles, the sunlight and it surface heating Shortwave radiation strike the surface of the Earth at increasingly larger angles until this equates to only a very slight glancing blow at both of the Earth's poles. This simple fact of Planetary geometry is what causes Heat to move from the Tropics towards the cooler higher latitudes Doug. This is not the only thing at play here. In the Tropics the troposphere is much higher and it's height decreases with higher latitudes being shalowest at the Poles. So the solar heating in the Tropics causes daytime convection which transports large amounts of Tropical air warm air to rise to very high altitudes, in order for the Atmosphere to maintain an equilibrium cool air from higher latitudes must fall. This happens naturally of course but warm ascending air from the Tropics does not always exactly equal cool descending air from the higher latitudes. Clouds, snow cover, land use changes, the water cycle, AMO, ENSO, PDO, Jet streams, VOC's, Polar ice cover, Ice sheet and Glacial changes, Snow accumulation and Snow melt, changes in Ocean salinity, other albedo changes, and obviously temperature deviations between the Tropics and the Poles all play a role in natural variability. I've probably left out at least half a dozen other factors in the list above, but Doug attributes none of these things but rather considers CO2 concentrations in the Atmosphere is the MAJOR driving force of Earth's Temperature change in the last 150 years because this is his Pet hypothesis and he doesn't practice Science but rather he practices Bias Confirmation.

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Yes.  The sun provides the energy that CO2 traps in the atmosphere.

By all accounts pre-industrial levels of CO2 ~ 180 ppmv equate to an Atmospheric warming of ~2.5 C and at 280 ppmv at the time of the Industrial revolution ~ 3 C, Reinhardt concludes that from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv CO2 has contributed ~ 0.12 K of warming and that if this was doubled to 800 ppmv it would only contribute another ~ 0.12 K to equal ~0.24 K in Atmospheric temperature rise. He also acknowledges that in the last 150 years the Earth's average annual temperature has risen by ~ 1 K where he concludes that CO2 can not be a major driver in the Earth's climate system and that some other process must be driving the current change we are seeing.

[lost_shaman]

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Warming has been about 1.4 degrees C. in the last 150 years.  That's 2.5 degrees F.  What did I say about you and arithmetic?

Um. Probably something derogatory with no basis in fact that equated to an Ad Hominem. 

 

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

[CO₂] has increased from 315 ppm in 1959 to 410 today.  That's an increase of 95 ppm in 59 years.  Or, if you'd like to go back beyond the Keeling curve:  in 1868, [CO₂] would have been about 287 ppm, which gives an increase of 124 ppm in 150 years.  So that's a 124 ppm increase in [CO₂] causing a rise of 1.4 degrees C. (2.5 degrees F). in the last 150 years.  That's pretty much what Rheinhardt was saying.

See now you are either making things up or deliberately confusicating  the FACTS!

Reinhardt completely agreed with the CO2 increase, he also completely agreed with the amount of warming over the time period. He also said unequivocally that the amount of warming could not be attributable to that CO2 increase! He said that CO2 increase amounts to ~ 0.12 K of the 1 K increase in warming over the time period. 

Please try to understand the discussion we are attempting to have here Doug. 

 

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

What I'm saying is that the increased water vapor in the atmosphere is due to increasing warmth which would not have happened without the additional [CO₂].  [CO₂] is the first cause.  If it didn't change, nothing else would.

Again, you are completely off your rocker Friend! Let me note again that just a simple 2% annual fluctuation in Earth's albedo equates to 7 w/m2 which completely dwarfs any impact that CO2 can possibly have and that amount of heating or cooling is what effects Water Vapor which also dwarfs any effect CO2 has in terms of heating the lower Atmosphere or surface temperatures! 

[Doug1029]

I tried to answer your questions, but came to the conclusion that you don't understand enough of the basics to understand what I am talking about.  You badly need to go back and learn the basics of climate.  Until you do, I see no future in continuing this discussion.

Doug

 

[Doug1029]

Derek:

One last shot at "guessing:"

What would you call it if someone "guessed" at which model to use and got it right 10 consecutive times with an error probability of less than 1 part in 10,000 each time? 

I just did that.  The FIT index was never less than 0.988 and was above 0.990 for nine of those.  Admittedly, it was not a random guess.  I have run the logarithmic decay curve numerous times before.  Seedling survival rates usually follow such a curve.  SO:  the logarithmic decay curve was a reasonable guess under the circumstances.  That's what I mean by "guessing."  When you choose which model to use, you have a pretty good idea of what might work, but you don't know until you try it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

By all accounts pre-industrial levels of CO2 ~ 180 ppmv equate to an Atmospheric warming of ~2.5 C and at 280 ppmv at the time of the Industrial revolution ~ 3 C, Reinhardt concludes that from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv CO2 has contributed ~ 0.12 K of warming and that if this was doubled to 800 ppmv it would only contribute another ~ 0.12 K to equal ~0.24 K in Atmospheric temperature rise. He also acknowledges that in the last 150 years the Earth's average annual temperature has risen by ~ 1 K where he concludes that CO2 can not be a major driver in the Earth's climate system and that some other process must be driving the current change we are seeing.

Let's get specific.  Put years on those.  Then we can look up the exact figures without having to guess what you mean by "pre-industrial" and the "at the time of the Industrial Revolution."  The 280 ppm figure is tossed around a lot, but it doesn't mean much without a specific year.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Let's get specific.  Put years on those.  Then we can look up the exact figures without having to guess what you mean by "pre-industrial" and the "at the time of the Industrial Revolution."  The 280 ppm figure is tossed around a lot, but it doesn't mean much without a specific year.

Come on Doug. You are the self proclaimed expert. You pick the year around 280 ppmv CO2 and we will go with that. 

[Doug1029]

We were talking about global carbon budgets.  Here is an article on it:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2880611?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Yes, Derek.  They do use equations.

Doug

[Doug1029]

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Come on Doug. You are the self proclaimed expert. You pick the year around 280 ppmv CO2 and we will go with that. 

[CO₂] climbed above 280 ppm for the first time in the Holocene in 1046.  It stayed there until 1571 when it dropped below that number.  It reached a local low of 275.47 in May 1634 and has been rising since.  It again crossed the 280 ppm threshold in August 1792.*  So that's my date:  August 1792.  Have at it.

Doug

P.S.:  1791 and 1792 had "the Mother of all El Ninos."  They are the widest rings in the shortleaf pine record.

*Data source:  D. C. Frank, 2010.  The Holocene in 1000-year segments.  Southwest Research Center, Boulder, Colorado.

Doug

Edited April 25, 2018 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

17 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

It again crossed the 280 ppm threshold in August 1792.*  So that's my date:  August 1792.  Have at it.

 

What do you want me to have at Doug? You asked what date we should begin with based on 280 ppmv of CO2. Looks like you answered the question.

[Doug1029]

Post #348.

Show that "CO2 concentrations have already roughly doubled and temperatures have NOT DOUBLED!"  Use [CO₂] = 280 ppm in August 1792.

Doug 

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Show that "CO2 concentrations have already roughly doubled and temperatures have NOT DOUBLED!"  Use [CO₂] = 280 ppm in August 1792.

Good grief Man!!! You do really understand that Temperatures have not "DOUBLED!" since 1792? Right Doug? 

[Doug1029]

9 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Good grief Man!!! You do really understand that Temperatures have not "DOUBLED!" since 1792? Right Doug? 

In Post 348 you said they have.  Now you're saying they haven't.  I copied and pasted your words right out of the post.  So which way do you want it?

Doug

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

In Post 348 you said they have.  Now you're saying they haven't.  I copied and pasted your words right out of the post.  So which way do you want it?

Doug

P.S.:  Since 1792, global temps have risen about 1.8 degrees C.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 4/21/2018 at 5:23 PM, lost_shaman said:

CO2 concentrations have already roughly doubled and temperatures have NOT DOUBLED! 

Here is what Doug is talking about from my post 348. While I didn't specifically state so in this particular post we know that CO2 concentrations had been as low as ~180 ppmv and that small amount equates to about 2.5 degrees C of atmospheric warming even though it is dangerously low as Live on Earth thrives on Carbon and CO2 levels of ~150 ppmv would basically become an extinction event from being to low for photosynthesis. So I was not incorrect when I stated that CO2 had doubled and temperatures had not (CO2s 180 ppmv concentration = ~2.5 C, at 360 ppmv it = ~3 C)  Doug is again trying to distract and confusicate the discussion at hand. 

So there you go Doug can say whatever he wants just keep in mind he is also playing loose with the facts and attempting to convolute the discussion as much as he can think he might get away with.

[lost_shaman]

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

P.S.:  Since 1792, global temps have risen about 1.8 degrees C.

 

Reinhardt say's the rise from 285 ppmv to current levels of ~400 equate to a ΔT of 1 K! So if Temperature had a ΔT of 0.8 C between 1791 at 280 ppmv then that extra 5 ppmv certainly didn't raise the Temperature by 0.8 C did it Doug? 

A few decades ago this would be called falsifiability and Doug would go away and not come back until he said sorry I got that one variable wrong and everything should look like this... But no that's not how Science seems to work anymore and it's become a sad state of affairs.

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Here is what Doug is talking about from my post 348. While I didn't specifically state so in this particular post we know that CO2 concentrations had been as low as ~180 ppmv and that small amount equates to about 2.5 degrees C of atmospheric warming even though it is dangerously low as Live on Earth thrives on Carbon and CO2 levels of ~150 ppmv would basically become an extinction event from being to low for photosynthesis. So I was not incorrect when I stated that CO2 had doubled and temperatures had not (CO2s 180 ppmv concentration = ~2.5 C, at 360 ppmv it = ~3 C)  Doug is again trying to distract and confusicate the discussion at hand. 

So there you go Doug can say whatever he wants just keep in mind he is also playing loose with the facts and attempting to convolute the discussion as much as he can think he might get away with.

The lowest CO2 reading from the Vostok ice core was 191 ppm at 150,330 YBP.  The LGM low reading was 193 ppm at 16,250 YBP.  There has been significant variation since then, to the extent that these readings can't serve as baseline readings for the Holocene (which officially began at 10,530 YBP).  CO2 first reached 280 ppm about 3000 YBP.  Except for a 7 ppm dip about 1640, it has pretty much stayed within 5 ppm of that figure until about 1800 when it started edging up.  By 1959 when Keeling began his study of atmospheric gases, it was up to 315 ppm and accelerating along a positive exponential curve.  It still is, with atmospheric concentrations now reaching 410 ppm.

CO2 concentrations can never reach 150 ppm.  At the point where photosynthesis starts to drop, plant death and decay restores the atmospheric balance.

You can find a table of CO2 concentrations from the Vostok ice core here:  https://www.nature.com/articles/329408a0.pdf

You can find a list of global temperature anomalies since 1880 here:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

There is a good description of the relationship between temperatures and CO2 here:  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

You can access NCDC's records of climate data here:  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data

Here is an article about the consequences of doubling atmospheric CO2 from "pre-industrial" levels (280 ppm), the topic we have been discussing:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels

 

As you can see, atmospheric CO2 levels have not yet doubled their pre-industrial levels.  There is no data on which LS can base his calculations, not to mention that a simple ratio-proportion model can't solve the problem.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 4/27/2018 at 9:15 AM, Doug1o29 said:

CO2 concentrations can never reach 150 ppm.  At the point where photosynthesis starts to drop, plant death and decay restores the atmospheric balance.

How do you know that? According to you wouldn't the drop in CO2 cause an Ice age and then all that Carbon gets sequestered under the Ice? 

Plankton gets a double whammy because if Glaciers grow Oceanic nutrients get cut off from land based sources. One thing that is very interesting is that O2 levels have held steady at 29.5% for millions of years despite things having changed which might be assumed to affect O2 levels. 

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

How do you know that? According to you wouldn't the drop in CO2 cause an Ice age and then all that Carbon gets sequestered under the Ice? 

Plankton gets a double whammy because if Glaciers grow Oceanic nutrients get cut off from land based sources. One thing that is very interesting is that O2 levels have held steady at 29.5% for millions of years despite things having changed which might be assumed to affect O2 levels. 

At maximum extent the Laurentide Ice Sheet made it to northern Kentucky.  There were still extensive forests south of there, including some of the most diverse forests ever to inhabit North America.  We have tree ring chronologies going back well into the ice age, preceding the Last Glacial Maxium.  Why would they be there if all the CO2 was under the ice?  Wood is 40% carbon.  So, no.  Not all the carbon was sequestered under the ice.  Forest soils are 2% carbon in the top 10cm AND you seem to have forgotten the 191ppm CO2 that was still floating around in the atmosphere.

In Post 363 I mistakenly said that CO2 climbed above 280ppm for the first time in 1046.  This was wrong.  CO2 had been hovering around 280ppm for centuires and had been above that number several times.  I should have said "for the first time in the Common Era."

I am involved with a project which is trying determine exactly how much carbon is contained in dead leaves, grasses, shrubs and other things that live in the understory and how that is affected by silvicultural practices such as thinning and logging.  The results will probably affect how much landowners get paid for carbon credits, so I am very involved with that issue.

You just gave me an interesting idea:  if low atmospheric CO2 levels would cause plant death, then there should be evidence of this in tree ring widths as the threshold is approached.  And we have tree ring chronologies going back far enough to test the idea!

Doug

 

[lost_shaman]

On 4/29/2018 at 10:27 AM, Doug1o29 said:

At maximum extent the Laurentide Ice Sheet made it to northern Kentucky.  There were still extensive forests south of there, including some of the most diverse forests ever to inhabit North America.  We have tree ring chronologies going back well into the ice age, preceding the Last Glacial Maxium.  Why would they be there if all the CO2 was under the ice?  Wood is 40% carbon.  So, no.  Not all the carbon was sequestered under the ice.  Forest soils are 2% carbon in the top 10cm AND you seem to have forgotten the 191ppm CO2 that was still floating around in the atmosphere.

I didn't say all the carbon was sequestered under all that Ice.

 

On 4/29/2018 at 10:27 AM, Doug1o29 said:

You just gave me an interesting idea:  if low atmospheric CO2 levels would cause plant death, then there should be evidence of this in tree ring widths as the threshold is approached.  And we have tree ring chronologies going back far enough to test the idea!

Save yourself some time. See below.

 

Quote

Changes in biomass allocation buffer low CO2 effects on tree growth during the last glaciation Guangqi Li, Laci M. Gerhart, Sandy P. Harrison, Joy K. Ward, John M. Harris & I. Colin Prentice Scientific Reports volume 7, Article number: 43087 (2017)

Crazy that Trees seem to have adapted to life on Earth! Who could possibly predict that? LOL 

This whole paper is about 180 ppmv CO2 being very close to high stress levels of low CO2 in the Atmosphere which could begin to STOP not slimply slow Photosynthesis ou the Planet. 

From the Abstract.

Quote

The necessity for changes in allocation in response to changes in [CO₂] is consistent with increased below-ground allocation, and the apparent homoeostasis of radial growth, as c_a increases today.

 

[Doug1029]

6 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I didn't say all the carbon was sequestered under all that Ice.

 

Save yourself some time. See below.

 

Crazy that Trees seem to have adapted to life on Earth! Who could possibly predict that? LOL 

This whole paper is about 180 ppmv CO2 being very close to high stress levels of low CO2 in the Atmosphere which could begin to STOP not slimply slow Photosynthesis ou the Planet. 

First, the lowest CO2 level that I know of was from the Vostok Ice Core which produced a record low of 191 ppm at 150,330 YBP.  CO2 has never been down to 180 ppm.  Almost, but not quite.

Second, should the trees die, there would be no tree ring record to consult.  But under stress, the rings should be narrower.  The trees should be under increasing stress as the CO2 concentration decreases and thus produce narrower rings.  And that should correlate with CO2 level, thus providing a confirmation or refutation of the proposal and an estimate of actual CO2 levels.  We already have several chronologies reaching back to 17,000 YBP.  The Vostok Ice Core shows 193ppm CO2 at 16,250 YBP.  So if there is an extremely narrow sequence of rings at that time, the hypothesis is confirmed, if not, it is rejected and we'll all have to go back to the drawing boards on that issue.  You have a genuine research prospect staring you in the face, a chance to make a difference, and you don't see it.

 

On another issue:  the Red River Controversy.  I believe you said your family had some land affected by it.

To reiterate the government's position:  the land it is talking about "taking" does not belong to private individuals.  Thus, the government is not taking anything it doesn't already own.  There seems to be a question whether the Supreme Court's relocation of the state line also affected private property lines.  If it didn't move private property lines along with the state line, then the court really didn't settle much of anything.

The Red River is not wide enough to require meandering in a survey; thus, for the most-part, the banks of the river have never been surveyed.  The court's attitude is that if nobody has cared to have their land surveyed in the last 150 years, they didn't regard their titles as worth defending, so if they lose them, it's no big deal.  But that cuts both directions:  if the govt didn't have its land surveyed back in the 1850s, it is in a poor position to claim the property line is in the wrong place.

Some of that land on the north side of the river is govt land and has been govt land all the way back to the Indians.  Those particular sections extend under the river, so the govt owns right up to the south shore as it stood in 1819.  But some other sections were reserved for the tribes in 1867.  In doing so, the govt ceded the north half of the river to the tribes.  That leaves the south half still in govt ownership.

Where the north shore has been sold to private owners, the deeds will tell what was sold and what wasn't.  If the govt reserved the river for itself, the deeds will say that.  If they don't say, then there is no govt title; the bottom of the river is private land.  There's a lot more to this, but that's it in a nutshell.

 

Tree rings can serve to constrain the property lines directly affected by the river.  An old-growth stand (old-growth = before 1819) that adjoins the cut bank shows that the line lies on the side away from the cutbank.  Stands on an island will grade in age with the youngest trees closest to the outside of the bend.  The oldest trees will be on the side toward an evulsion; the evulsion is more recent than the oldest trees in the stand.  This can be done with nearly any species - cottonwood, cedar, even sagebrush.  Tree rings have been used as evidence of property lines before.  If you need more specifics on that, let me know; I'll dig it up for you.

I can get more info on this if you need it; just let me know.

Doug