Quote:

A new study led by the University of Oxford has overturned the view that natural rock weathering acts as a CO2 sink, indicating instead that this can also act as a large CO2 source, rivalling that of volcanoes. The results, published today in the journal Nature, have important implications for modelling climate change scenarios. Rocks contain an enormous store of carbon in the ancient remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. This means that the “geological carbon cycle” acts as a thermostat that helps to regulate the Earth’s temperature. For instance, during chemical weathering rocks can suck up CO2 when certain minerals are attacked by the weak acid found in rainwater. This process helps to counteract the continuous CO2 released by volcanoes around the world, and forms part of Earth’s natural carbon cycle that has helped keep the surface habitable to life for a billion years or more. However, for the first time this new study measured an additional natural process of CO2 release from rocks to the atmosphere, finding that it is as significant as the CO2 released from volcanoes around the world. Currently, this process is not included in most models of the natural carbon cycle. The process occurs when rocks that formed on ancient seafloors (where plants and animals were buried in sediments) are pushed back up to Earth’s surface, for example when mountains like the Himalayas or Andes form. This exposes the organic carbon in the rocks to oxygen in the air and water, which can react and release CO2. This means that weathering rocks could be a source of CO2, rather than the commonly assumed sink. Up to now, measuring the release of this CO2 from weathering organic carbon in rocks has proved difficult. In the new study, the researchers used a tracer element (rhenium) which is released into water when rock organic carbon reacts with oxygen. Sampling river water to measure rhenium levels makes it possible to quantify CO2 release. However, sampling all river water in the world to get a global estimate would be a significant challenge. To upscale over Earth’s surface, the researchers did two things. First, they worked out how much organic carbon is present in rocks near the surface. Second, they worked out where these were being exposed most rapidly, by erosion in steep, mountain locations. Dr Jesse Zondervan, the researcher who led the study at the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, said: “The challenge was then how to combine these global maps with the river data, while considering uncertainties. We fed all of our data into a supercomputer at Oxford, simulating the complex interplay of physical, chemical, and hydrological processes. By piecing together this vast planetary jigsaw, we could finally estimate the total carbon dioxide emitted as these rocks weather and exhale their ancient carbon into the air." This could then be compared to how much CO2 could be drawn down by natural rock weathering of silicate minerals. The results identified many large areas where weathering was a CO2 source, challenging the current view about how weathering impacts the carbon cycle. Hotspots of CO2 release were concentrated in mountain ranges with high uplift rates that cause sedimentary rocks to be exposed, such as the eastern Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, and the Andes. The global CO2 release from rock organic carbon weathering was found to be 68 megatons of carbon per year.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1003520

Besides Volcanic eruptions. The process of release or intake of CO2 by rocks would be a very very very slow process over thousands of years to be of any effect, no?

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2023 at 12:23pm:

The global CO2 release from rock organic carbon weathering was found to be 68 megatons of carbon per year.

Man’s emissions are in excess of 30 gigatons a year.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 11:24am:

Man’s emissions are in excess of 30 gigatons a year.

Link?

In this forum you need to quote evidence.    ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 11:24am:

Man’s emissions are in excess of 30 gigatons a year.

And? It is not in the climate models which you favour. Probably in the assumptive emissions. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2023 at 12:23pm:

Quote: A new study led by the University of Oxford has overturned the view that natural rock weathering acts as a CO2 sink, indicating instead that this can also act as a large CO2 source, rivalling that of volcanoes. The results, published today in the journal Nature, have important implications for modelling climate change scenarios. Rocks contain an enormous store of carbon in the ancient remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. This means that the “geological carbon cycle” acts as a thermostat that helps to regulate the Earth’s temperature. For instance, during chemical weathering rocks can suck up CO2 when certain minerals are attacked by the weak acid found in rainwater. This process helps to counteract the continuous CO2 released by volcanoes around the world, and forms part of Earth’s natural carbon cycle that has helped keep the surface habitable to life for a billion years or more. However, for the first time this new study measured an additional natural process of CO2 release from rocks to the atmosphere, finding that it is as significant as the CO2 released from volcanoes around the world. Currently, this process is not included in most models of the natural carbon cycle. The process occurs when rocks that formed on ancient seafloors (where plants and animals were buried in sediments) are pushed back up to Earth’s surface, for example when mountains like the Himalayas or Andes form. This exposes the organic carbon in the rocks to oxygen in the air and water, which can react and release CO2. This means that weathering rocks could be a source of CO2, rather than the commonly assumed sink. Up to now, measuring the release of this CO2 from weathering organic carbon in rocks has proved difficult. In the new study, the researchers used a tracer element (rhenium) which is released into water when rock organic carbon reacts with oxygen. Sampling river water to measure rhenium levels makes it possible to quantify CO2 release. However, sampling all river water in the world to get a global estimate would be a significant challenge. To upscale over Earth’s surface, the researchers did two things. First, they worked out how much organic carbon is present in rocks near the surface. Second, they worked out where these were being exposed most rapidly, by erosion in steep, mountain locations. Dr Jesse Zondervan, the researcher who led the study at the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, said: “The challenge was then how to combine these global maps with the river data, while considering uncertainties. We fed all of our data into a supercomputer at Oxford, simulating the complex interplay of physical, chemical, and hydrological processes. By piecing together this vast planetary jigsaw, we could finally estimate the total carbon dioxide emitted as these rocks weather and exhale their ancient carbon into the air." This could then be compared to how much CO2 could be drawn down by natural rock weathering of silicate minerals. The results identified many large areas where weathering was a CO2 source, challenging the current view about how weathering impacts the carbon cycle. Hotspots of CO2 release were concentrated in mountain ranges with high uplift rates that cause sedimentary rocks to be exposed, such as the eastern Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, and the Andes. The global CO2 release from rock organic carbon weathering was found to be 68 megatons of carbon per year. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1003520

Dumb rocks are causing the climate  crisis! How dare they?

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/x/4/c/d/3/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1240x700.1x4bp3.png/1570133425686.jpg

Dumb rocks are not playing much of a role in AGW.

60+ megatons

is nothing compared to

30+ gigatons.


I understand conservative asshats may not know the difference between mega and giga. Let Google be your friend.

Sources:

---

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 3:21pm:

Dumb rocks are not playing much of a role in AGW. 60+ megatons is nothing compared to 30+ gigatons. I understand conservative asshats may not know the difference between mega and giga. Let Google be your friend.

What other aspects of the very complex global climate system are  not in the models?? How much do volcanos emit, including unidentified, unmapped undersea volcanos?

About 3% of our emissions.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 3:36pm:

About 3% of our emissions.

And that is only a guesstimate on "our" emissions. ;)

But perhaps you can quantify ocean outgassing, that too is a guesstimate.

A “guestimate” says lees who thought 60+ megatons was a big deal?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

How do you think we arrive at the 30+ gigatons figure lees?

Maybe working out the emissions from the known amounts of coal, oil, gas burned eh?  ;)

How do mega and giga relate lees? Do you know? Then enlighten Sore End who doesn’t.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 4:18pm:

A “guestimate” says lees who thought 60+ megatons was a big deal?

Only you assumed I thought it a big deal. ::)


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 4:18pm:

How do you think we arrive at the 30+ gigatons figure lees?

It is an estimate. A guesstimate.

"Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities"

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do-countries-measure-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 4:18pm:

Maybe working out the emissions from the known amounts of coal, oil, gas burned eh?

And then there are the unknown or unreported or misreported emissions.  ::)


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 4:18pm:

Do you know?

Yes petal. But do you? ::)

Edit: "To see the magnitude of the issue, consider that the average emissions intensity for Australia’s black-coal-fired plants is around 0.9 kg of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour, while Victoria’s brown coal plants run at 1.2-1.5 kg of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour"

https://theconversation.com/farewell-to-brown-coal-without-tears-how-to-shut-high-emitting-power-stations-50904

They use an average because there is no set CO2 emissions from coal. ::)

LOL!

C + O₂ = CO₂

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 3:21pm:

Dumb rocks are not playing much of a role in AGW. 60+ megatons is nothing compared to 30+ gigatons. I understand conservative asshats may not know the difference between mega and giga. Let Google be your friend.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/

Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry were 37.12 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2021. Emissions are projected to have risen 0.9 percent in 2022 to 37.5 GtCO₂ - their highest ever level. Since 1990, global CO₂ emissions have increased by more than 60 percent. The two biggest contributors to global emissions are China and the United States, who produced 11.47 and 5.01 GtCO₂ in 2021, respectively.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 4:40pm:

C + O2 = CO2

Wow. You must be a chemistry major. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That brown coal gives a 20-25% uncertainty. ::)

30Gton >> 60megaton  ;)

No estimation of rock release of CO2?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 4:40pm:

C + O2 = CO2

Evidence?

:D :D

Year 1 high school chemistry.

Have you worked out the difference between mega and giga, Sore End?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 7:18pm:

No estimation of rock release of CO2?

Of course it is an estimation dumbo. Just like the others that you don't want to admit to. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 8:02pm:

Year 1 high school chemistry.

Wow. A true intellectual. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 1:51pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6th, 2023 at 11:24am: Man’s emissions are in excess of 30 gigatons a year. Link? In this forum you need to quote evidence.    ::)

LOL!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2023 at 8:02pm:

Year 1 high school chemistry. Have you worked out the difference between mega and giga, Sore End?

What other aspects of the very complex global climate system are  not in the models?? How much do volcanos emit, including unidentified, unmapped undersea volcanos?

Volcanoes emit about 3% of what we emit, Sore End.

There is a concept I tremble to introduce—Isotope analysis. Let Google be your friend.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 7:14am:

Volcanoes emit about 3% of what we emit, Sore End. There is a concept I tremble to introduce—Isotope analysis. Let Google be your friend.

In this forum you need to quote evidence.     ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 7:14am:

Volcanoes emit about 3% of what we emit, Sore End. There is a concept I tremble to introduce—Isotope analysis. Let Google be your friend.

Does that include the unknown number of undersea volcanos?

I knew I should not have mentioned an advanced concept to Sore End. You do need SOME sort of intelligence to understand some concepts.

I doubt Sore End really understands:

Rock CO2—68megatons

Man’s emissions: 37+ Gigatons.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 8:48am:

I knew I should not have mentioned an advanced concept to Sore End. You do need SOME sort of intelligence to understand some concepts. I doubt Sore End really understands: Rock CO2—68megatons Man’s emissions: 37+ Gigatons.

What other aspects of the very complex global climate system are  not in the models??

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 8:48am:

You do need SOME sort of intelligence to understand some concepts.

You mean like correlation is not causation?

Why don't you tell us your reasoning on why the Downwelling Longwave Radiation is declining instead of rising as per CO2 theory. ;)

That is not what Feldman found:

---

Why is the graph the shape it is, anybody?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 1:01pm:

That is not what Feldman found:

Marty Feldman? Link?

Found it it a PubMED publication.

So he used TWO only earth bound stations and found global significance.

You do understand Science is a moving feast. Later papers carry more weight.  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 1:15pm:

Why is the graph the shape it is, anybody?

Up - do you have a link?

In this forum you need to quote evidence.

Let Google be your friend and appreciate I am boosting your anemic post rate.

Now—why is that graph the shape it is? Anyone?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 2:27pm:

Let Google be your friend and appreciate I am boosting your anemic post rate.

So tell us why an older paper is better? ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 2:27pm:

Now—why is that graph the shape it is? Anyone?

Because it is correlation. ::)

Did you ever think clear sky of itself causes warning. Less clouds more warmth. ::)
.
From the paper - "We used the Line-by-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM), which is continuously compared against other line-by-line models and observations."

Models all the way down. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Only in CliSciFi are models observations. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 2:27pm:

Let Google be your friend and appreciate I am boosting your anemic post rate. Now—why is that graph the shape it is? Anyone?

No Monk.

I shouldn't have to search with Google to prove or disprove your posts.
Try and be an adult.

You cannot disprove my post. Feldman is easy to find, even lees managed it.

Now, why is the graph the shape it is

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 2:53pm:

You cannot disprove my post.

Only that it is, as usual, flawed. And published in a Medical Journal. Models. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Medical journal, lees?

For the lethargic Mod of this MRB:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240


Quote:

Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

When you have studied the paper Oh Wise One can you then explain the shape of the graph?

Lees also eschews explaining why the graph is the shape it is.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 3:26pm:

Medical journal, lees?

Yep.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731165/

First published in Nature, lees.

PubMed only published the abstract, not the whole paper.

Can you explain the shape of the graph, lees?

Who knows? Certainly not you. 2 sites is a proxy for the world. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It isn’t that hard, lees.

Neither is this -

"Figure 4 | Time-series of surface forcing. a, Time series of observed spectrally integrated (520–1,800 cm21) CO2 surface radiative forcing at SGP (in red) with overlaid CT2011 estimate of CO2 concentration from the surface to an altitude of 2 km (grey), and a least-squares trend of the forcing and its uncertainty (blue). "

::)

Try and you should figure out the shape of the graph, lees. It really isn’t that hard.

Immaterial it is only computer games. ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 2:53pm:

You cannot disprove my post. Feldman is easy to find, even lees managed it. Now, why is the graph the shape it is

Monk,
I asked you nicely -
why are you a recalcitrant?

I gave you the link. Read back then apologise to me.

lees has given up.

Only the Mighty Mod can work out the answer!

Poor JM can't reconcile his flawed Marcott paper with CET. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 6:25pm:

I gave you the link. Read back then apologise to me.

You posted a graph -
I don't see your graph here:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731165/

Why are you a recalcitrant?

That is not my link, it is lees’.

If you particularly want to see the original of the graph:

https://skepticalscience.com/greenhouse_measured.html

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 6:34pm:

That is not my link, it is lees’.

OK sorry -
so where is your graph at that link here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2023 at 6:35pm:

If you particularly want to see the original of the graph: https://skepticalscience.com/greenhouse_measured.html

Finally a link.
It took you a while -
took lots of prodding.

My link is in reply 40