ZERO C02 increase in last 160 years
Realist
Rav1ng rabbit
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction or
AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
In the conclusions they say:
> From what we understand about the underlying
> processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
> change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
> further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
> in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
> since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
> or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
> the available data and its accuracy.
If you want to read more than you should buy the article, or mail the
authors and beg for a personal copy.
Hope this helps,
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
erschro...@gmail.com
There's obviously some right-wing web site that's trumpeting "the
article says no CO2 increase" since several denialists have posted it
here, and it's obvious they've not read it. That's the thing with
denialists -- they never read their sources; they just crib material
from some right-wing web site. I've found some of their sources
actually say the opposite of what they claimed.
Of course, they would never bother to read something scientific. It's
full of science (which is socialist) and lots of big words, and math.
JohnM
Here's the abstract. It shows that the increase in the airborne
fraction is not statistically significant. In other words, one cannot
tell if the added CO2 from fossil fuel use is being partitioned as it
was historically or not. This is good news, as it means there may
still be time for humanity to take avoiding action.
"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the
oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their
ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2
emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40%
of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
additional climate change. This study re-examines the available
atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It
is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne
fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and
not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that
the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with
the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down
to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of
coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction
can be found."
Rav1ng rabbit
The article didn't say that, you should read it completely and not only
read the abstract. The authors investigated the airborne fraction SINCE
the start of the industrial revolution, and not any point further back
in time when we hardly burned any fossil fuels.
Before the IR CO2 was stable near 280 ppm, whatever we burned came from
wood. In other words, our short term effect on the carbon cycle was
closed. All sources were in the biosphere, and the biosphere was able to
handle what we did.
But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle, because 40%
remains airborne, while 60% is eaten up by the oceans and the biosphere.
Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
atmosphere.
> still be time for humanity to take avoiding action.
There is actually no good news at all in the entire message. Burn 10
barrels of oil, and the carbon of 4 of them stay in the air. So how to
you get 0 in the air which would stabilize our CO2? The only remedy is
to grow more trees, or to burn zero barrels of oil, or to jump out of
the window.
No good news at all my friend,
Q
>
> "Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the
> oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their
> ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2
> emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40%
> of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented
> additional climate change. This study re-examines the available
> atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It
> is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne
> fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 � 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and
> not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that
> the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with
> the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down
> to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of
> coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction
> can be found."
JohnM
OK. The news is not as bad as it would have been had Prof. Knorr found
a statistically significant increase in the atmospheric fraction.
Rav1ng rabbit
The latter is entirely true.
Giga
"Realist" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1L6dnSAW-oGgG6LW...@giganews.com...
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
Or put another way, we emmit more and more and yet the co2 just goes up at
the same rate? Strange if it is true that emmissions ad to co2 in the
atmosphere. From 1850 to now gone up by 1800% at yet the rate of co2
increase has stayed the same and gone up by only 40%.
ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) - New data show that the balance between the
airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed
approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide
having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a
year now.
I M @ good guy
I am not sure anything about CO2 emissions are
a good thing other than the bigger harvest per acre.
If the fraction stayed the same, does that mean
the CO2 in the ocean increased in the same proportion
as the airborne? That can't be good news for anybody
but the flora and some shell fish.
There is not going to be any decrease in CO2
emissions, the politicos and greens that try to
promote a reduction are dreaming, it can't happen,
so it won't.
If it turns out that added CO2 in the atmosphere
causes even a little cooling, that is bad news, warming
is more of a non-issue in the near term, and the long
term may not be as bad as claimed by the alarmists
because buildings don't last all that long.
Any plans made more than 10 or 15 years
in advance are not useful, future telling is just
garbage no matter where it comes from.
Green Turtle
news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>
> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
> atmosphere.
>
And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
>
> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
Super Turtle.
Giga
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:i2mvj5l0fmmdvbdgo...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:09:11 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>>"Realist" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:1L6dnSAW-oGgG6LW...@giganews.com...
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>>
>>Or put another way, we emmit more and more and yet the co2 just goes up at
>>the same rate? Strange if it is true that emmissions ad to co2 in the
>>atmosphere. From 1850 to now gone up by 1800% at yet the rate of co2
>>increase has stayed the same and gone up by only 40%.
>>
>>ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) - New data show that the balance between the
>>airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed
>>approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide
>>having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a
>>year now.
>
>
> I am not sure anything about CO2 emissions are
> a good thing other than the bigger harvest per acre.
If human emmissions are largely or almost completely being absorbed by
plants and plankton then more food is a good thing. There doesn't seem to be
much of a downside.
>
> If the fraction stayed the same, does that mean
> the CO2 in the ocean increased in the same proportion
> as the airborne? That can't be good news for anybody
> but the flora and some shell fish.
We need to indentify why co2 has gone up in the atmosphere, as the
simplistic idea 'we burn it, it goes up in the air' doesn't seem to be the
case. The base of the food pyramid in the ocean is exactly the same as the
land, the plants/plankton are at the base. The reduction in alkalinity in
the oceans is tiny.
Rav1ng rabbit
> "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
>> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>
> Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
> scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
Come on guy, this is a basic fact, all Chinese, Indians, and South
Americans now joined our way of living. Since the 70's we are in an
hyper acceleration mode, before that time it was a modest acceleration
since WW2, etc etc. The following graph is purely based on economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
Please read the corresponding article.
>
>> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
>> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>
> And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
> increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
> compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
> return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
No, that was the point of the article, our emissions are only absorbed
for 60% by plants and the ocean. The remaining fraction stays airborne.
>> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>
> No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
There no good news at all, for every 10 barrels we burn, 4 remain in the
atmosphere. This means that the Keeling curve is just a scaled version
of the fossil fuel burning that we do. IOW, there is no way to stop a
progression of atmospheric CO2 concentration unless we stop burning
those pesky carbons from geologic sources.
Now that you've learned this, what do you think we should do to
stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? This is not going to be easy.
Greetz,
Rav1ng rabbit
This is pure denial, because CO2 is causing warming, and, as you've just
seen, no matter what we do on the emission reductions, the 390 ppm now
will only increase UNLESS we decided to stop burning fossil fuels.
>
> Any plans made more than 10 or 15 years
> in advance are not useful, future telling is just
> garbage no matter where it comes from.
This is pure denial, our predicament is charted.
Rav1ng rabbit
Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
The black line shows that we fired off roughly 2500 Megaton/yr of carbon
in 1960, and presently we do around 8000 Megaton/yr.
The conversion assumes that 40% of the burned carbon ends up in the
atmosphere so that we get to see it in the observed CO2 curve measured
at the Hawaii observatory.
year PPM CO2 Megaton Carbon/year
1960.00 316.51 2464.10
1961.00 317.11 2662.41
1962.00 318.03 2983.96
1963.00 318.81 2622.05
1964.00 319.53 1256.76
1965.00 319.53 1499.10
1966.00 320.39 4417.14
1967.00 322.05 4127.38
1968.00 322.74 3343.61
1969.00 323.95 3906.06
1970.00 324.97 3827.68
1971.00 326.14 3365.03
1972.00 326.89 4288.17
1973.00 328.59 4477.38
1974.00 329.45 3598.76
1975.00 330.64 3798.32
1976.00 331.61 3821.10
1977.00 332.82 5713.29
1978.00 334.87 5660.14
1979.00 336.05 5236.93
1980.00 337.86 5603.81
1981.00 339.25 5401.61
1982.00 340.95 3965.65
1983.00 341.51 5156.30
1984.00 343.89 6521.63
1985.00 345.23 4572.97
1986.00 346.50 4884.34
1987.00 348.02 6094.00
1988.00 349.98 7761.88
1989.00 352.45 6239.22
1990.00 353.54 4407.39
1991.00 354.97 4155.27
1992.00 355.91 2677.81
1993.00 356.49 3287.50
1994.00 357.78 5468.95
1995.00 359.62 6408.01
1996.00 361.44 5328.66
1997.00 362.66 6099.62
1998.00 364.92 8851.76
1999.00 367.71 6751.66
2000.00 368.78 4455.30
2001.00 370.25 5691.81
2002.00 372.02 7614.10
2003.00 374.60 8325.88
2004.00 376.77 6220.41
2005.00 378.15 7388.89
2006.00 380.99 7868.70
2007.00 382.64 6911.45
2008.00 384.94 6852.72
To get the third colmn rates I wrote a matlab script where the file
co2_mm_mlo.txt comes from
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
and where you replace the leading #'s by %'s to get it into the matlab
format (wish that textread was smarter).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
clear;
%
data = textread('co2_mm_mlo.txt','','commentstyle','matlab');
%figure(1); plot(data(:,3),data(:,6),'-');
%
Ma = 5.14e18; % mass of the atmosphere (see wiki)
%
n = size(data,1);
BM = 0; % burned carbon mass
i = 0;
for i=2:n,
dc = data(i,6) - data(i-1,6); % carbon change
dm = dc * Ma * 1e-6; % mass change accounting for ppm
dAF = dm / 1e9; % conversion to million tons CO2
dAF = dAF * (12/(12+16+16)) % CO2 has 12+16+16, carbon has 12
dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not absorbed
BM = BM + dBM;
i = i + 1;
x(i) = data(i,3); % date
y(i) = BM; % burned carbon mass
ppm(i) = data(i,6); % CO2 ppm
end
%
xx=1959:2009;
yy=spline(x,y,xx);
zz=spline(x,ppm,xx);
nn = size(xx,2);
k = 0;
for ii=2:nn-1,
k = k + 1;
rate(k) = (yy(ii+1) - yy(ii-1))/2;
year(k) = xx(ii);
co2(k) = zz(ii);
end
%
figure(2);
subplot(2,1,2); plot(year,rate,'o-')
xlabel('year');
ylabel('megaton / year');
title('Carbon mass burning rate');
%
subplot(2,1,1); plot(year,co2,'o-')
xlabel('year');
ylabel('ppm');
title('Keeling curve');
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It may not be according to all tight software specs, but the Keeling
curve is simply in agreement with our fossil fuel burning. This is the
true meaning behind the "CO2 airborne fraction remained constant message".
Greetz,
I M @ good guy
wrote:
It would not only be not easy, it isn't going
to happen, so don't wring your hands and whimper.
A really good idea for the warmist brainwashed,
watch the articles that claim added CO2 could cause
cooling.
The coincidence of clouds during the daytime,
clear skies at night, and snow cover is enough to
cause an ice age, any cooling effect of increased
radiation to space, or reduction in solar insolation
adds to the threat of cooling.
I could use a warming of 30 degrees F today,
that would only make the maxT today about
5 degrees above normal, still way below record
highs, and short of what is comfortable.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote:
You must read things I did not write, other than
sea level rise there is little or no down side to warmer,
the tropics will not warm because of the water cycle.
>because CO2 is causing warming,
So you and a bunch of parrots say, it would not
be the first time a falsehood was taught and existed
in the literature before being reversed.
>and, as you've just
>seen, no matter what we do on the emission reductions, the 390 ppm now
>will only increase UNLESS we decided to stop burning fossil fuels.
We are not going to stop burning fossil fuels
until alternate forms of space heating is available,
accept that, all the whining is not going to change
it.
We can reduce personal transport fossil fuel
use by about 50 percent in 20 years, plus produce
carbon neutral biofuel to reduce another 20 or 30
percent, but space heating is the problem.
Now, that could change some, if only all the
greens got together and supported nuclear power
plants and heat pumps replace central air.
>> Any plans made more than 10 or 15 years
>> in advance are not useful, future telling is just
>> garbage no matter where it comes from.
>
>This is pure denial, our predicament is charted.
>
>Q
But the future is not, we can go either direction,
my way means less fossil fuel used, the green way
means slow or no change in CO2 emissions.
Roving rabbit
[snip]
>
> You must read things I did not write, other than
> sea level rise there is little or no down side to warmer,
> the tropics will not warm because of the water cycle.
The head deep in the tarsands, global warming will also cause droughts,
and as a result climate refugees.
>
>> because CO2 is causing warming,
>
>
> So you and a bunch of parrots say, it would not
> be the first time a falsehood was taught and existed
> in the literature before being reversed.
You have no counter-evidence at all on day 45 and counting, climategate
brought you nothing.
>
>> and, as you've just
>> seen, no matter what we do on the emission reductions, the 390 ppm now
>> will only increase UNLESS we decided to stop burning fossil fuels.
>
>
> We are not going to stop burning fossil fuels
> until alternate forms of space heating is available,
> accept that, all the whining is not going to change
> it.
The oil crisis I still remember. :-) I was fun.
> We can reduce personal transport fossil fuel
> use by about 50 percent in 20 years, plus produce
> carbon neutral biofuel to reduce another 20 or 30
> percent, but space heating is the problem.
You mean office space heating? Zero CO2 buildings exist.
>
> Now, that could change some, if only all the
> greens got together and supported nuclear power
> plants and heat pumps replace central air.
Some do, some don't, I don't think we need the revive nuclear technology
yet, but, time will tell.
>
>>> Any plans made more than 10 or 15 years
>>> in advance are not useful, future telling is just
>>> garbage no matter where it comes from.
>> This is pure denial, our predicament is charted.
>>
>> Q
>
> But the future is not, we can go either direction,
> my way means less fossil fuel used, the green way
> means slow or no change in CO2 emissions.
You want to hear a very simple prediction of the future?
For all decades were we add another 15 ppm of carbon dioxide we add 225
mW/m^2 of global warming potential, and this means that you will see
0.17 degree centigrade of warming as a result.
Even if you stabilize our carbon emission rates today, then in 2100 we
get 1.5 degree centigrade extra compared to the 1.5 C we already have
gained since 1850.
It is an unstoppable process, until we run out of oil or come to our
senses and stop this idiocy.
Q
--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Try again after the cold spell is over,
space heating means mostly home heating,
new housing is a very small fraction of
existing buildings.
Socialists may think it is easy just to
tear everything down and build new, but
socialism is on its way out even though
more people need money without jobs.
Monkey Clumps
> Green Turtle wrote:
> > "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
> >> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>
> > Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
> > scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>
> Come on guy, this is a basic fact, all Chinese, Indians, and South
> Americans now joined our way of living. Since the 70's we are in an
> hyper acceleration mode, before that time it was a modest acceleration
> since WW2, etc etc. The following graph is purely based on economics:
>
>
> Please read the corresponding article.
>
>
>
> >> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
> >> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> > And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
> > increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
> > compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
> > return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
>
> No, that was the point of the article, our emissions are only absorbed
> for 60% by plants and the ocean. The remaining fraction stays airborne.
>
> >> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>
> > No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
>
> There no good news at all, for every 10 barrels we burn, 4 remain in the
> atmosphere. This means that the Keeling curve is just a scaled version
> of the fossil fuel burning that we do. IOW, there is no way to stop a
> progression of atmospheric CO2 concentration unless we stop burning
> those pesky carbons from geologic sources.
>
> Now that you've learned this, what do you think we should do to
> stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? This is not going to be easy.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Q
Why do we need to? CO2 is still at very low levels historically:
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Plus, CO2 has never driven temperature in the past, why should we
expect it to do so now? CO2 is generally beneficial to plantlife and
by extension, us.
Roving rabbit
That is because the system earth changed too much over 500 million year
to make the comparison to the present day situation. Plate tectonics
causes continents to move from one location to another, Antarctica was
for instance not where it is today, etc. To analyze the present day
situation you should analyze an Earth which resembles our present day
world. The last 400 thousand year for instance, where there is better
isotopic data compared to 500 million years ago:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Marvin the Martian
> Realist wrote:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>>
>>
> The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
> about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
> revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction or
> AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
> In the conclusions they say:
That's a bullshit article that was written to target folks who either
didn't pass lower division chemistry or never took it. We're supposed to
believe that man made CO2 is somehow magical and doesn't enter the ocean
like "natural" CO2. We are asked to believe the oceans can take 100 GtC
of natural CO2 but balks at taking our 5.5 GtC that is man made. That's
stupid just on the face of it! Chemistry is still chemistry and the ratio
of ocean CO2 to atmosphere CO2, can only change with temperature, and the
only way CO2 in the oceans can change is with temperature.
Since the ratio is 770 GtC Atmosphere : 40,000 GtC ocean, any additional
CO2 added to either the atmosphere or ocean will ALWAYS result in an
equilibrium of 2% being added to the atmosphere, and 98% to the ocean.
The only thing that can change that ratio is a temperature change, and it
won't ever change to where 40% goes into the atmosphere, that's bullshit.
That debunks well known and proven chemistry. IT is an embarrassingly
stupid claim to say that 40% goes into the atmosphere. Utterly ignorant.
Likewise, the equilibrium constant for dissolved CO2 from carbonate rock
is also dictated by simple chemistry: for a given temperature, it is
FIXED given sufficient calcium. Add more CO2 and it precipitates out as
Carbonate rock. Take CO2 out and it is replenished by dissolved carbonate
rock.
And right now, we're seeing carbonate rocks dissolve in the oceans,
which, by simple chemistry is the ONLY possible cause of the CO2 increase
observed in the atmosphere.
CO2 is an EFFECT of temperature change, and NOT a cause.
The who argument is based on isotope ratios, and the FALSE presumption
(stupidity and incompetence or intentional lying it, matters not either
way) that the ONLY source of sequestered carbon is from fossil fuels; it
totally ignores that there is a HUGE reservoir of sequestered carbon in
ocean carbonate rock.
Tom P
Because never in the past history of the planet have humans been around
to burn gigatons of fossil fuel every year.
In fact there was quite possibly a comparable situation 250 million
years ago, google Permian Mass Extinction.
CO2 is generally beneficial to plantlife and
> by extension, us.
Like on Venus, maybe?
>
Roving rabbit
> You don't even need a graph to see the non-correlating numbers.
Translation: Peter is blind and does not see that 2500 Mt carbon/year
and around 8000 Mt Carbon/year is a perfect correlation.
> ROFLMAO
I call it German humor, the thinnest book in the world.
> Wanna show us yet another GIGO model?
Do you need new spectacles or so?
Flaps_50!
> Green Turtle wrote:
> > "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> >> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
> >> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>
> > Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
> > scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>
> >> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
> >> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
> >> atmosphere.
>
> > And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
> > increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
> > compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
> > return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
> >> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>
> > No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
>
> > Super Turtle.
>
> Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
> Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
> agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also
>
Are you a modeling climatologist?
Lookee here ----> dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not
absorbed
Bwhahahhahahahaha !!!
Cheers
erschro...@gmail.com
Plus, AIDS has never caused deaths in the past, why should we expect
it to do so now?
> CO2 is generally beneficial to plantlife and
> by extension, us.
So is water, so nobody drowns. Nobody dies from hitting a patch of
ice on the road. Nobody dies in floods.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:48:15 +0100, Rav1ng rabbit wrote:
> > Realist wrote:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
> > The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
> > about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
> > revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction or
> > AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
> > In the conclusions they say:
>
> That's a bullshit article that was written to target folks who either
> didn't pass lower division chemistry or never took it.
Like you.
>We're supposed to
> believe that man made CO2 is somehow magical and doesn't enter the ocean
> like "natural" CO2.
Remember LeChatlier. The CO2 (atm) is in equilibrium with the CO2
(ocean). Now, what happens if you add CO2 to the atmosphere? The
atmospheric CO2 goes up. Eventually more of the CO2 will go into the
ocean and a new equilibrium will be established, but one with still
higher atmospheric CO2 than before.
You did study LeChatlier's principle?
>We are asked to believe the oceans can take 100 GtC
> of natural CO2 but balks at taking our 5.5 GtC that is man made.
So you didn't study equilibrium and LeChatlier.
>That's
> stupid just on the face of it! Chemistry is still chemistry and the ratio
> of ocean CO2 to atmosphere CO2, can only change with temperature,
Go back and read your equilibrium chapter. It can change if you add
CO2 to the atmosphere.
>and the
> only way CO2 in the oceans can change is with temperature.
>
> Since the ratio is 770 GtC Atmosphere : 40,000 GtC ocean, any additional
> CO2 added to either the atmosphere or ocean will ALWAYS result in an
> equilibrium of 2% being added to the atmosphere, and 98% to the ocean.
But it's a slow process, a very slow one. That's why the atmospheric
CO2 is up 40%. How else do you explain that?
> The only thing that can change that ratio is a temperature change, and it
> won't ever change to where 40% goes into the atmosphere, that's bullshit.
That's only if you are not disturbing the equilibrium.
Consider the classical example, N2 + 3 H2 <=> 2 NH3. Now add N2.
What happens? The N2 goes up. The equilibrium will shift right,
making more NH3, but you will atill have more N2 than you started
with. And in the case of something as large, and with as much inertia
as the oceans, this shift takes a long time.
> That debunks well known and proven chemistry. IT is an embarrassingly
> stupid claim to say that 40% goes into the atmosphere. Utterly ignorant.
>
Then why is atmospheric CO2 up 40%?
> Likewise, the equilibrium constant for dissolved CO2 from carbonate rock
> is also dictated by simple chemistry: for a given temperature, it is
> FIXED given sufficient calcium. Add more CO2 and it precipitates out as
> Carbonate rock. Take CO2 out and it is replenished by dissolved carbonate
> rock.
>
> And right now, we're seeing carbonate rocks dissolve in the oceans,
> which, by simple chemistry is the ONLY possible cause of the CO2 increase
> observed in the atmosphere.
>
> CO2 is an EFFECT of temperature change, and NOT a cause.
>
Uh, the oceans are gaining CO2, not losing it.
You really didn't pass chemistry, did you?
> The who argument is based on isotope ratios, and the FALSE presumption
> (stupidity and incompetence or intentional lying it, matters not either
> way) that the ONLY source of sequestered carbon is from fossil fuels; it
> totally ignores that there is a HUGE reservoir of sequestered carbon in
> ocean carbonate rock.
Which are not coming out. The oceans are gaining CO2, which means
that equilibrium -- CO2 (ocean) <=> CO2 (rock) is shifting to the rock
side.
Roving rabbit
>>
>
>
> Are you a modeling climatologist?
>
> Lookee here ----> dBM = dAF / 0.4; % 40% is not
> absorbed
>
> Bwhahahhahahahaha !!!
>
> Cheers
Read the F*****G paper for once and try to understand what it means, 40%
is airborne, input is the airborne part, output is the burned mass part,
so delta burned mass * 0.4 = delta airborne, or dBM = dAF/0.4 as stated
in the matlab script.
By doing so I was able to reproduce the burned carbon mass rates from
the measured co2 rates as stated in the paper.
You simply didn't appreciate it because you live in the denialiosphere.
Roving rabbit
I really don't understand your gibberish scribbles.
Bill Ward
Q seems so proud of his ignorance. Without that, he'd have nothing.
Marvin's comments make perfect sense to anyone who stayed awake in high
school chemistry.
Roving rabbit
Oh, how kind, two denialists are having an orgy.
Bill Ward
Well, now we all know what Q was thinking of when he should have been
paying attention to his chemistry. It's a bit weird, but it does explain
a lot...
Flaps_50!
Do you even begin to understand why a constant 0.4 cannot be correct?
No, like your climatologist modeling buddies you have no understanding
of chemistry, math or physics and by the way, your method of
integration/code sucks too.
Cheers
Roving rabbit
> On Jan 5, 7:11 am, Roving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>> Flaps_50! wrote:
>>> On Jan 4, 12:57 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>> Green Turtle wrote:
>>>>> "Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b3fb4a3$0$22940$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>> But since the IR we emitted vasts amounts of CO2 from fossil sources
>>>>>> which is apparently too much for the system Earth to handle
>>>>> Apparently? Says who? Cite? Maybe, apparently, perhaps, gee, you so
>>>>> scientific in a trailer park kind of way.
>>>>>> Since the IR we therefore added a new loop to the carbon cycle, and this
>>>>>> loop is not closed because we see how CO2 concentrations built up in the
>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>> And the result is more plant growth *ASSUMING* there been any significant
>>>>> increase in co2 in the atmosphere anyway. We only talking about 3% output
>>>>> compared to 97% of nature in one year. The response of nature is to
>>>>> return to a balance, and that's what the article shows...
>>>>>> There is actually no good news at all in the entire message.
>>>>> No, it great news, and shows that man's co2 output is not a problem.
>>>>> Super Turtle.
>>>> Doing some homework in the meantime. Below is the annual averaged
>>>> Keeling curve and the estimated carbon burned. These carbon burn rates
>>>> agree roughly with what you find from economic data, see also
I have a message for you:
Two totally independent data source are brought into agreement by a
factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL paper, and I was able to validate
this claim. So I'm convinced that the authors have the answer in the
right ball-park.
> No, like your climatologist modeling buddies you have no understanding
> of chemistry, math or physics and by the way, your method of
> integration/code sucks too.
I have a second message for you:
The debat is over for me because two totally independent data source are
brought into agreement by a factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL paper,
and I was able to validate this claim. So I'm convinced that the authors
have the answer in the right ball-park.
>
> Cheers
Greetz,
Flaps_50!
What happens to the carbonate from carboniferous rocks that are being
dissolved on land? Would that not supply CO2 also? You see your model
is so simplistic it's worthless.
Cheers
Roving rabbit
>>
>>> Likewise, the equilibrium constant for dissolved CO2 from carbonate rock
>>> is also dictated by simple chemistry: for a given temperature, it is
>>> FIXED given sufficient calcium. Add more CO2 and it precipitates out as
>>> Carbonate rock. Take CO2 out and it is replenished by dissolved carbonate
>>> rock.
>>> And right now, we're seeing carbonate rocks dissolve in the oceans,
>>> which, by simple chemistry is the ONLY possible cause of the CO2 increase
>>> observed in the atmosphere.
>>> CO2 is an EFFECT of temperature change, and NOT a cause.
>> Uh, the oceans are gaining CO2, not losing it.
>>
>> You really didn't pass chemistry, did you?
>>
>>> The who argument is based on isotope ratios, and the FALSE presumption
>>> (stupidity and incompetence or intentional lying it, matters not either
>>> way) that the ONLY source of sequestered carbon is from fossil fuels; it
>>> totally ignores that there is a HUGE reservoir of sequestered carbon in
>>> ocean carbonate rock.
>> Which are not coming out. The oceans are gaining CO2, which means
>> that equilibrium -- CO2 (ocean) <=> CO2 (rock) is shifting to the rock
>> side.
>
> What happens to the carbonate from carboniferous rocks that are being
> dissolved on land? Would that not supply CO2 also? You see your model
> is so simplistic it's worthless.
>
> Cheers
There are several carbon loops on earth:
1) Weathering of rocks is a natural process that removes CO2 from the
atmosphere, you only need Olivine according to R.D. Schuiling at the
Utrecht university who made this point here:
http://www.geo.uu.nl/Research/Geochemistry/abstracts/O_Schuiling.html
The natural weathering of rocks is one where carbon is added to the long
carbon loop. I call it long because the time scales associated with this
loop is of the order of millions of years. The carbonates would either
deposit on the continents or the ocean bottom, and via tectonics and
volcanism you get the carbon airborne again. Carbonation is the reason
that continental lithospheres are thick.
2) Another long carbon loop is photosynthesis leading to oil and coal
reservoirs also ending up in the plate tectonics cycle. Also this is a
natural loop with a time scales in the order of millions of years.
3) A short carbon loop is that plants and animals exchange carbon. The
time scales are of the order of days to centuries. In this case
temperature and currently land use determine the efficiency of the exchange.
4) A short carbon loop between the ocean and the atmosphere, the time
scales are of the order of days to centuries. Temperature affects the
efficiency of the exchange.
5) While loops 1 to 4 are all natural, we added a fifth loop, which is
the retrieval of fossil fuels whose carbon ends up in the atmosphere.
The time scale associated with this loop is presently in the order of
years, the record is not longer than about 160 years.
The GRL article of Knorr didn't say anything about loops 1 and 2, the
paper only addressed the short time scales associated with loops 3 till
5, and in particular loop 5 because the built-up of extra CO2 in the
atmosphere is perfectly correlated to fossil fuel burning, as I could
verify in the example posted somewhere in this thread.
My objection to the strawman arguments raised by Marvin the Martian and
Bill Ward is that they suddenly insert these completely unrelated items
in the discussion. Their points have no impact on the original point
made by Knorr in GRL, which is that the atmospheric fraction associated
with loop 5 is of the order of 40%.
The conclusion remains that the burning of 10 tons on carbon will result
in six tons ending up in loop 2 and 3, while four tons end up in loop 5.
Loops 1 and 2 are not affected by this process.
The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
Bill Ward
While Q loops and spins in circles, the relatively fast equilibrium
between gaseous CO2, dissolved CO2, and solid carbonates on the sea floor
remains. There's no way to distinguish which "loop" any given carbon
atom is in, it's simply part of the equilibrium. The "loops" are only
artificial constructs to illustrate the paths that can be taken.
> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than doing
the work required to actually understand chemistry.
Unum
Notice that Bullshit Ward doesn't cite an iota of evidence for any of
this crap.
>> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
>
> Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than doing
> the work required to actually understand chemistry.
Ward does no work, complains about someone else who did do work.
Roving rabbit
This is the typical strawman argument used by climate skeptics. You can
not, bla bla bla.
In the given case there is a rather strong test that specifically
focuses on loops 3 till 5.
>
>> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
>
> Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than doing
> the work required to actually understand chemistry.
The chemistry is easy, and perhaps you forgot another strong point as
well, which is radioisotope analysis of the CO2 and O2 fractions in the
airborne samples.
This is a second independent confirmation that the increase airborne CO2
component is from fossil sources.
Please let those skeptical AGW rumblings pass this newsgroup, it is
hilariously simple to debunk them.
I rest my case,
Bill Ward
> On 1/5/2010 11:46 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:07:26 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote:
>>>
>>> My objection to the strawman arguments raised by Marvin the Martian
>>> and Bill Ward is that they suddenly insert these completely unrelated
>>> items in the discussion. Their points have no impact on the original
>>> point made by Knorr in GRL, which is that the atmospheric fraction
>>> associated with loop 5 is of the order of 40%.
>>>
>>> The conclusion remains that the burning of 10 tons on carbon will
>>> result in six tons ending up in loop 2 and 3, while four tons end up
>>> in loop 5. Loops 1 and 2 are not affected by this process.
>>
>> While Q loops and spins in circles, the relatively fast equilibrium
>> between gaseous CO2, dissolved CO2, and solid carbonates on the sea
>> floor remains. There's no way to distinguish which "loop" any given
>> carbon atom is in, it's simply part of the equilibrium. The "loops"
>> are only artificial constructs to illustrate the paths that can be
>> taken.
>
> Notice that Bullshit Ward doesn't cite an iota of evidence for any of
> this crap.
If you need references for simple logic and high school chemistry, you
aren't qualified to comment.
>>> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
>>
>> Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than
>> doing the work required to actually understand chemistry.
>
> Ward does no work, complains about someone else who did do work.
No complaining, just pointing out the obvious errors in the "work".
Unum and Q must be neighbors.
Bill Ward
Ok, then, show us how you can look at a carbon atom in the ocean and tell
which "loop" it's in.
> In the given case there is a rather strong test that specifically
> focuses on loops 3 till 5.
So explain how it works, and how the CO2 equilibrium between air, ocean
and CaCo3 can avoid mixing all the loops together.
>>> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
>>
>> Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than
>> doing the work required to actually understand chemistry.
>
> The chemistry is easy, and perhaps you forgot another strong point as
> well, which is radioisotope analysis of the CO2 and O2 fractions in the
> airborne samples.
>
> This is a second independent confirmation that the increase airborne CO2
> component is from fossil sources.
How do you tell whether CO2 came from fossil fuel or fossil CaCO3?
Remember, of course, that fossil shells and fossil fuels are both
depleted in C14, and are of biological origin.
> Please let those skeptical AGW rumblings pass this newsgroup, it is
> hilariously simple to debunk them.
You have a hilarious concept of what constitutes "debunking". I've
explained my points, you've not.
> I rest my case,
What case?
Raving Rabb1t
The question itself is completely irrelevant for this particular problem.
>
>> In the given case there is a rather strong test that specifically
>> focuses on loops 3 till 5.
>
> So explain how it works, and how the CO2 equilibrium between air, ocean
> and CaCo3 can avoid mixing all the loops together.
The question itself is completely irrelevant for this particular problem.
>
>>>> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
>>>
>>> Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than
>>> doing the work required to actually understand chemistry.
>>
>> The chemistry is easy, and perhaps you forgot another strong point as
>> well, which is radioisotope analysis of the CO2 and O2 fractions in the
>> airborne samples.
>>
>> This is a second independent confirmation that the increase airborne CO2
>> component is from fossil sources.
>
> How do you tell whether CO2 came from fossil fuel or fossil CaCO3?
> Remember, of course, that fossil shells and fossil fuels are both
> depleted in C14, and are of biological origin.
The question itself is completely irrelevant for this particular problem.
>
>> Please let those skeptical AGW rumblings pass this newsgroup, it is
>> hilariously simple to debunk them.
>
> You have a hilarious concept of what constitutes "debunking". I've
> explained my points, you've not.
Ah, well my friend, again and again you have nothing because you are
nothing.
>
>> I rest my case,
>
> What case?
>
All AGW deniers can do it to ask lots of really silly questions which
have nothing to do with the original problem that 40% of the emitted CO2
belongs to the airborne fraction.
Two completely independent datasets confirmed this finding, but instead
you get to hear all kind of fantasy stories about chemistry and
unrelated carbon loops which have nothing to do with the original problem
Nice dodge Bill, but the people won't buy it,
Q
--
The raving rabbit follows AGW deniers
Raving Rabb1t
Irrelevant for this problem,
Bill Ward
Q must think readers are so stupid they won't simply look upthread and
see that it was in fact Q (as "roving rabbit") that told the "fantasy
stories about chemistry and unrelated carbon loops". It started
with,"There are several carbon loops on earth:"
Now, after I pointed out fatal errors he can't address, he's trying to
distance himself from his "nice dodge", by claiming it was mine. That's
somewhere between hilarious and pathetic, but I assume it's the best he
can do with what he's got to work with.
Bill Ward
The solution to Q's problem may require stronger meds.
Raving Rabb1t
Dear Bill Ward,
As far as I can tell there are NO errors in the statement that 40% of
the emitted CO2 remains airborne.
You can try what you want, but you have shown absolutely nothing. All I
see from your side are unrelated remarks which don't have any quality to
prove or disprove the statement that 40% of the emitted CO2 remains
airborne.
So I rest my case, it is abundantly clear that the atmosphere is a
garbage bin for our emitted CO2.
Furthermore CO2 is known to be a major contributor to greenhouse gas
forcing.
To stop the warming process is not going to be easy, no matter what you
denier folks are trying to say.
Q
> somewhere between hilarious and pathetic, but I assume it's the best he
> can do with what he's got to work with.
>
Unum
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:29:51 -0600, Unum wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/2010 11:46 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:07:26 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My objection to the strawman arguments raised by Marvin the Martian
>>>> and Bill Ward is that they suddenly insert these completely unrelated
>>>> items in the discussion. Their points have no impact on the original
>>>> point made by Knorr in GRL, which is that the atmospheric fraction
>>>> associated with loop 5 is of the order of 40%.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion remains that the burning of 10 tons on carbon will
>>>> result in six tons ending up in loop 2 and 3, while four tons end up
>>>> in loop 5. Loops 1 and 2 are not affected by this process.
>>>
>>> While Q loops and spins in circles, the relatively fast equilibrium
>>> between gaseous CO2, dissolved CO2, and solid carbonates on the sea
>>> floor remains. There's no way to distinguish which "loop" any given
>>> carbon atom is in, it's simply part of the equilibrium. The "loops"
>>> are only artificial constructs to illustrate the paths that can be
>>> taken.
>>
>> Notice that Bullshit Ward doesn't cite an iota of evidence for any of
>> this crap.
>
> If you need references for simple logic and high school chemistry, you
> aren't qualified to comment.
I didn't see any logic, just some of the usual handwaving from a blowhard
on the internet. By contrast, the loops concept clearly describes the
movement of carbon over various timescales. You can certainly distinguish
the "loop position" of carbon atoms in long timescale substances such as
oil and coal and rock for example. Isn't that right.
>>>> The AGW deniers straw man parade was spotted and ignored once again.
>>>
>>> Q lives in his own little world of fantasy. It's much easier than
>>> doing the work required to actually understand chemistry.
>>
>> Ward does no work, complains about someone else who did do work.
>
> No complaining, just pointing out the obvious errors in the "work".
There wasn't any pointing out, just some vacuous blathering.
> Unum and Q must be neighbors.
Then we get other vacuous remarks.
Bill Ward
>> That's somewhere between hilarious and pathetic, but I assume it's the
>> best he can do with what he's got to work with.
>
> Dear Bill Ward,
>
> As far as I can tell there are NO errors in the statement that 40% of
> the emitted CO2 remains airborne.
>
> You can try what you want, but you have shown absolutely nothing. All I
> see from your side are unrelated remarks which don't have any quality to
> prove or disprove the statement that 40% of the emitted CO2 remains
> airborne.
>
> So I rest my case, it is abundantly clear that the atmosphere is a
> garbage bin for our emitted CO2.
>
> Furthermore CO2 is known to be a major contributor to greenhouse gas
> forcing.
>
> To stop the warming process is not going to be easy, no matter what you
> denier folks are trying to say.
>
> Q
Poor Q. That which he does not understand, he can only deny.
The principle of chemical equilibrium is understood by most high school
chemistry students, but apparently not by Q. I suspect his strategy of
denying the obvious will be a hard sell to most readers.
Desperation has taken its toll. Q has now become scientifically
irrelevant, serving only as a missionary for the CO2/AGW cult.