Re: Atmospheric CO2 residence time is 5 years
NZ0,,,0B0
"Roving rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:4ba312af$0$22944$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> bw wrote:
>> The correct evaluation of the CO2 residence time -- giving values of
>> about 5
>> years for the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 molecules, as per Essenhigh's
>> (2009) reasoning and numerous measurements with different methods --
>> tells
>> us that the real world's CO2 is part of a dynamic (i.e. non-static)
>> system,
>> where about one fifth of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged every year
>> between different sources and sinks, due to relatively fast equilibria
>> and
>> temperature-dependent CO2 partitioning governed by the chemical Henry's
>> Law
>> (Segalstad 1992; Segalstad, 1996; Segalstad, 1998)
>>
>> http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
>>
>>
>
> The reality is that the airborne fraction is 40%, see also a recent GRL
> paper by Knorr et al, I already explained it several times.
>
> Of every ton of carbon added emitted 400 kg remains in the atmosphere
> for at least 160 years. This is easy to verify, it is also confirmed by
> isotope studies.
>
> The half life of all emitted atmospheric CO2 is therefor of the order of
> 100 years, and not 5 years as suggested.
>
> Q
Atmospheric CO2 Lifetime Is Only 5-10 Years According To MEASUREMENTS
Measurements Trump Models
July 7 2007
QUOTE: "Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide
staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2
enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until
recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in
the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans'
near-limitless ability to absorb CO2."
We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body
that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the
world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere
and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented
buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere,
threatening us all.
"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at
the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC.
He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a
knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view,
since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.
"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,"
he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the
IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."
Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in
the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the
globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the
world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere
for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless
ability to absorb CO2.
"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural
carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing,
it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established
by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has
been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been
established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by
many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has
often relied upon such measurements.
Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that
carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change
scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought
must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models
calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the
real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere.
Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such
measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.
Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are
erroneous.
"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence
that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute
their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the
process."
In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in
the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much
CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2,
meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain
chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the
present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of
fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas,
and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."
Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance
calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the
atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists,
the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because
this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the
CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought
this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without
success.
"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2
lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that
an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,"
Prof. Segalstad concludes.
"It is all a fiction."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural
History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the
Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the
Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and
program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of
Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard
(Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology,
metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis
(how magmatic rocks form). He was an expert reviewer to the UN's IPCC's
Third Assessment Report.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e
Warmest Regards
0zb0n
"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more
than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to
demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Last Post
> "Roving rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4ba312af$0$22944$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> > paper by Knorr et al, I already explained it several times.
>
> > Of every ton of carbon added emitted 400 kg remains in the atmosphere
> > for at least 160 years. This is easy to verify, it is also confirmed by
> > isotope studies.
>
> > The half life of all emitted atmospheric CO2 is therefor of the order of
> > 100 years, and not 5 years as suggested.
ø That is really a JOKE!!
Has nobody considered the effect of gravity?
Never mind 100 years or 5 years, 5 days is
more to the reality. As soon as the cloud bank,
(97% H2O+3% CO2) hits a cold front the
water + CO2 hits the the deck.
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes