THE CO2 LIE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Eric Gisse 2007 FairBanks Alaska (UAF) with his 8-node Beowulf cluster.
Next: Hilbert vs. Einstein in GR
From: Sirius on 10 Jan 2010 05:01 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:51:22 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : >> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb carbon >> dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained unchanged for 160 >> years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to offset. > > Ah, here we go again... > > Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that > the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If > you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160 > years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily verify it. No sir. The atmosphere is not the garbage bin for 40% of the carbon humanity burns. First you should turn back to your chemistry course and have a look at the law of 'chemical equilibrium'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium If you increase the concentration of a reactant, the chemical reaction will tend to consume it. Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in oceans to give CaCO3 which precipitate. There is a chemical equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the equilibrium reaction will consume it. Oceans contain enormous amounts of carbon, much more than the athmosphere. The chemical reaction is not instantaneous, so the carbon is not instantly absorbed. Many scientific studies over the last half-century determined that, the CO2 half-life is around 3 years : half of injected the CO2 is absorbed after 3 years. That does not mean that half will stay in the atmosphere forever, it will only react later, and end as CaCO3. All this, and much more on the CO2 cycle in atmosphere, is explained here : http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ And don't tell me that because you don't like what you suppose of Segalstadt political opinions, it is false. Just read it, and if in doubt, verify from other sources that everything is true. It is just science.
From: Roving rabbit on 10 Jan 2010 05:08 Sirius wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:51:22 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : > >>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb carbon >>> dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained unchanged for 160 >>> years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to offset. >> Ah, here we go again... >> >> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear that >> the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we burn. If >> you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at least 160 >> years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily verify it. > > No sir. The atmosphere is not the garbage bin for 40% of the carbon > humanity burns. I was citing Knorr's published result in GRL. > > First you should turn back to your chemistry course and have a look at > the law of 'chemical equilibrium'. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium > If you increase the concentration of a reactant, the chemical reaction > will tend to consume it. > Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in oceans > to give CaCO3 which precipitate. There is a chemical equilibrium between > the ocean and the atmosphere, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in > the atmosphere, the equilibrium reaction will consume it. > Oceans contain enormous amounts of carbon, much more than the athmosphere. So, why don't we see that taking up the 40%? > > The chemical reaction is not instantaneous, so the carbon is not > instantly absorbed. Many scientific studies over the last half-century > determined that, the CO2 half-life is around 3 years : half of injected > the CO2 is absorbed after 3 years. That does not mean that half will stay > in the atmosphere forever, it will only react later, and end as CaCO3. > > All this, and much more on the CO2 cycle in atmosphere, is explained > here : > http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ > > And don't tell me that because you don't like what you suppose of > Segalstadt political opinions, it is false. Just read it, and if in > doubt, verify from other sources that everything is true. It is just > science. Again, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about the science. the table I posted confirms that 40% remains airborne just like Knorr found in GRL. The CaCO3 loop you describe is simply not efficient enough, otherwise the atmospheric CO2 would no rise as everybody is seeing. Q -- The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
From: Sirius on 10 Jan 2010 07:31 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:08:01 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : > Sirius wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:51:22 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : >> >>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb >>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained >>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to >>>> offset. >>> Ah, here we go again... >>> >>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear >>> that the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we >>> burn. If you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at >>> least 160 years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily >>> verify it. >> >> No sir. The atmosphere is not the garbage bin for 40% of the carbon >> humanity burns. > > I was citing Knorr's published result in GRL. > > >> First you should turn back to your chemistry course and have a look at >> the law of 'chemical equilibrium'. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium If you increase the >> concentration of a reactant, the chemical reaction will tend to consume >> it. >> Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in oceans >> to give CaCO3 which precipitate. There is a chemical equilibrium >> between the ocean and the atmosphere, if you increase the concentration >> of CO2 in the atmosphere, the equilibrium reaction will consume it. >> Oceans contain enormous amounts of carbon, much more than the >> athmosphere. > > So, why don't we see that taking up the 40%? You will know that if you take the care to read the reference I gave you. Other factors influence the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature of oceans for exemple. Further more, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a problem at all, except for the gullibles. > > >> The chemical reaction is not instantaneous, so the carbon is not >> instantly absorbed. Many scientific studies over the last half-century >> determined that, the CO2 half-life is around 3 years : half of injected >> the CO2 is absorbed after 3 years. That does not mean that half will >> stay in the atmosphere forever, it will only react later, and end as >> CaCO3. >> >> All this, and much more on the CO2 cycle in atmosphere, is explained >> here : >> http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ >> >> And don't tell me that because you don't like what you suppose of >> Segalstadt political opinions, it is false. Just read it, and if in >> doubt, verify from other sources that everything is true. It is just >> science. > > Again, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about the science. > the table I posted confirms that 40% remains airborne just like Knorr > found in GRL. > > The CaCO3 loop you describe is simply not efficient enough, otherwise > the atmospheric CO2 would no rise as everybody is seeing. From the XVIII. and XIX. century scientific records, we know that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are much more variable than we are told today, for natural reasons. We know too, that the ocean temperature is driving the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere and not the atmospherical CO2 driving the temperature, or very few. > > Q
From: Roving rabbit on 10 Jan 2010 07:45 Sirius wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:08:01 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : > >> Sirius wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:51:22 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : >>> >>>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb >>>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained >>>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to >>>>> offset. >>>> Ah, here we go again... >>>> >>>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear >>>> that the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we >>>> burn. If you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at >>>> least 160 years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily >>>> verify it. >>> No sir. The atmosphere is not the garbage bin for 40% of the carbon >>> humanity burns. >> I was citing Knorr's published result in GRL. >> >> >>> First you should turn back to your chemistry course and have a look at >>> the law of 'chemical equilibrium'. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium If you increase the >>> concentration of a reactant, the chemical reaction will tend to consume >>> it. >>> Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in oceans >>> to give CaCO3 which precipitate. There is a chemical equilibrium >>> between the ocean and the atmosphere, if you increase the concentration >>> of CO2 in the atmosphere, the equilibrium reaction will consume it. >>> Oceans contain enormous amounts of carbon, much more than the >>> athmosphere. >> So, why don't we see that taking up the 40%? > > You will know that if you take the care to read the reference I gave you. > Other factors influence the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the > temperature of oceans for exemple. > Further more, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a > problem at all, except for the gullibles. > >> >>> The chemical reaction is not instantaneous, so the carbon is not >>> instantly absorbed. Many scientific studies over the last half-century >>> determined that, the CO2 half-life is around 3 years : half of injected >>> the CO2 is absorbed after 3 years. That does not mean that half will >>> stay in the atmosphere forever, it will only react later, and end as >>> CaCO3. >>> >>> All this, and much more on the CO2 cycle in atmosphere, is explained >>> here : >>> http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ >>> >>> And don't tell me that because you don't like what you suppose of >>> Segalstadt political opinions, it is false. Just read it, and if in >>> doubt, verify from other sources that everything is true. It is just >>> science. >> Again, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about the science. >> the table I posted confirms that 40% remains airborne just like Knorr >> found in GRL. >> >> The CaCO3 loop you describe is simply not efficient enough, otherwise >> the atmospheric CO2 would no rise as everybody is seeing. > > From the XVIII. and XIX. century scientific records, we know that CO2 > concentration in the atmosphere are much more variable than we are told > today, for natural reasons. Cite? > We know too, that the ocean temperature is driving the CO2 concentration > of the atmosphere and not the atmospherical CO2 driving the temperature, > or very few. Cite? Q -- The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
From: Sirius on 10 Jan 2010 08:33
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:45:01 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : > Sirius wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:08:01 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : >> >>> Sirius wrote: >>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:51:22 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote : >>>> >>>>>> Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb >>>>>> carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained >>>>>> unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to >>>>>> offset. >>>>> Ah, here we go again... >>>>> >>>>> Someone who does not understand that it is indeed bad news to hear >>>>> that the earth's atmosphere is a garbage bin for 40% of the CO2 we >>>>> burn. If you burn a ton of carbon, then 40% stays airborne for at >>>>> least 160 years. This is no good news at all, and you can easily >>>>> verify it. >>>> No sir. The atmosphere is not the garbage bin for 40% of the carbon >>>> humanity burns. >>> I was citing Knorr's published result in GRL. >>> >>> >>>> First you should turn back to your chemistry course and have a look >>>> at the law of 'chemical equilibrium'. >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium If you increase the >>>> concentration of a reactant, the chemical reaction will tend to >>>> consume it. >>>> Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in >>>> oceans to give CaCO3 which precipitate. There is a chemical >>>> equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere, if you increase the >>>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the equilibrium reaction will >>>> consume it. Oceans contain enormous amounts of carbon, much more than >>>> the athmosphere. >>> So, why don't we see that taking up the 40%? >> >> You will know that if you take the care to read the reference I gave >> you. Other factors influence the concentration of CO2 in the >> atmosphere, the temperature of oceans for exemple. >> Further more, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not >> a problem at all, except for the gullibles. >> >> >>>> The chemical reaction is not instantaneous, so the carbon is not >>>> instantly absorbed. Many scientific studies over the last >>>> half-century determined that, the CO2 half-life is around 3 years : >>>> half of injected the CO2 is absorbed after 3 years. That does not >>>> mean that half will stay in the atmosphere forever, it will only >>>> react later, and end as CaCO3. >>>> >>>> All this, and much more on the CO2 cycle in atmosphere, is explained >>>> here : >>>> http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ >>>> >>>> And don't tell me that because you don't like what you suppose of >>>> Segalstadt political opinions, it is false. Just read it, and if in >>>> doubt, verify from other sources that everything is true. It is just >>>> science. >>> Again, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about the science. >>> the table I posted confirms that 40% remains airborne just like Knorr >>> found in GRL. >>> >>> The CaCO3 loop you describe is simply not efficient enough, otherwise >>> the atmospheric CO2 would no rise as everybody is seeing. >> >> From the XVIII. and XIX. century scientific records, we know that CO2 >> concentration in the atmosphere are much more variable than we are told >> today, for natural reasons. > > Cite? > >> We know too, that the ocean temperature is driving the CO2 >> concentration of the atmosphere and not the atmospherical CO2 driving >> the temperature, or very few. > > Cite? "One should note, however, that it is not clear whether the CO2 is the driver or is being driven by climate change, particularly since the CO2 appears to lag by centuries behind the temperature changes (Petit et al.,1999; Fischer et al., 1999; Mudelsee, 2001; Monnin et al., 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Clarke, 2003), thus potentially acting as an amplifier but not as a driver." [Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? NIR J. SHAVIV AND JÁN VEIZER - GSA TODAY VOL. 13, NO. 7 A PUBLICATION OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA JULY 2003] > > Q |