Comments on: Taimyr

By: TCO

TCO — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:42:22 +0000

ET, I think you are “spouting words”, but don’t feel like bothering more with this.

By: ET Sid Viscous

ET Sid Viscous — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:37:12 +0000

Absorption of CO2 into what is logarathmic. Trees, water, soda Pop?

Again you have sompletely and totally mis-understood what I have said.

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:17:55 +0000

re: #19
Please have a look at these two links
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/519.htm

The absorption of CO2 is indeed logarithmic (as Arrhenius observed), and is therefore a constant for every CO2 doubling. The ‘hot’ SRES scenarios however, assume an exponential growth, leading to an increasing temperature trend.

Hans (currently from USA)

ref:
Arrhenius, S, 1901, Ueber die Wàƒ⣲meabsorption durch Kohlensàƒ⣵re, Annalen der Physik Bd 4. 1901, p690-705.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhenius1901/index.html

By: ET Sid Viscous

ET Sid Viscous — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:35:46 +0000

Addition of CO2 the atmosphere = Warming is the process that I’m speaking of. That s the process that is logarithmic. There is an upper limit based upon atmospheric density, solar output etc etc etc.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:55:52 +0000

Depends on the forcing function (for instance rate of carbon introduction) and also if we change into a strongly positive feedback regime in the system. Of course, in the pedantic sense that we will not have infinite temperature, the effect will level off somewhere. But of concern would be a radical move up.

By: ET Sid Viscous

ET Sid Viscous — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:37:02 +0000

“I’m not so sure that it will not taper off ”

Considering that the thermal effects that govern the behavior of the process are logarithmic and will effectively reach 0 at some point, it cant do anything but taper off

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:49:37 +0000

I’m hoping for cooling — I think Florida would be much nicer if it were about 15 F cooler!

Back to the science, I would hope that the trees were from different epochs, not from the same one, so the per-ring-width averagings would each be over a variety of different conditions. I definitely agree on the need for a lot more good quantitative work at the boundary between tree physiology and ecology.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:42:27 +0000

My Bayesian level estimate is that GW is happening at a 3:1 likelihood (nothing like a scientific consensus that only evil babykilling creationist dubyas would disagree with…but still…more likely than not). I’m not so sure that it will not taper off or that the real effects will be that bad. I mean, I would love it if VA was more like NC let alone like FL. I love alligators…

By: ET Sid Viscous

ET Sid Viscous — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:59:06 +0000

I still find it somewhat disconcerting that people are using healthy tree growth as the predictor of our doom.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:04:23 +0000

great. that explains the offset, the lack of juvenile growth for living trees and the top and bottom scales.

I guess this study is also all of trees of the same epoch? It’s still interesting to wonder how do you deconvolute for the age effect versus the climate effect (for instance on your “calibration runs” to determine “age effect” won’t there also be long term climate trends affecting the overall curve? Especially over last 200 years, where we know climate has warmed.

Still think it would be good to have some better calibrations done. Either by very careful use of locations where temp was recorded for a long time instrumentally (or some other very accurate proxy) or via greenhouse measurements.