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: Bill Ward on 10 Jan 2010 15:48 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? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law> "Partial pressure of CO2 in seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature." That's just for serious readers. Q won't be able to see the significance.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 10 Jan 2010 15:48 On Jan 10, 12:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:01:47 +0000, 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. > > > 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_equilibriumIf 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. > > Now you've gone and done it, Sirius. If Q were actually able to read and > understand your explanation, he might accidentally learn some valid > chemistry. What would the group do for entertainment if that happened? > > Not to worry, though. Since he's never bothered to learn anything before, > we can most likely continue to enjoy the scientific gaffes that he and > his comrades so unwittingly (witlessly?) provide us.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - translation, people like bill take for granted the effects of phytoplankton, and the ecosystems they depend on (now thats funny).
From: OG on 10 Jan 2010 15:54 "usenet(a)mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)" wrote in message news:20100109LJfRE3854xK7mkI9pUZimas(a)O34VH... > The CO2 Lie > > Editorial > Investors Business Daily > Tuesday, January 5, 2010 > > 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. > > A major tenet of the global warming religion, straight from the Book > of Gore, has been that the ability of the earth to handle increasing > CO2 emissions is finite and that once the "tipping point" is reached, > the earth will warm uncontrollably. Well, another climate domino has > fallen -- the myth that man-made CO2 is leading to climate > catastrophe. > > This "settled science" has been upended by an unsettling (for warm- > mongers) new study out of the University of Bristol in England. > Unlike the Climate-gate charlatans at the Climate Research Unit at > the University of East Anglia, Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol's Earth > Sciences Department followed the data where it led instead of trying > to manipulate it to "hide the decline" in global temperatures the > earth has experienced in the last decade. > > The new study, published in the online journal Geophysical Research > Letters, does not deny that increasing amounts of CO2 have been > generated as the world has industrialized, eradicated disease, > produced agricultural abundance and improved man's standard of > living. It does show that only 45% of man's emissions, not 100% as > warmers claim, stays in the atmosphere, That's what's known as a strawman argument. The IPCC does not claim that 100% of anthropgenic (AG) CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Nor does the IPCC claim that the amount of AG CO2 remaining in the atmosphere has changed to a large extent over the last 150 years. There is a fear that there will be a /future/ decrease in the amount of AG CO2 that can be absorbed, but looking at trends over the last 150 years may not be the best way of determining what will or will not happen in the future.
From: OG on 10 Jan 2010 16:06 "OG" <owen(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message news:7qut64F6kbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > That's what's known as a strawman argument. The IPCC does not claim that > 100% of anthropgenic (AG) CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Nor does the IPCC > claim that the amount of AG CO2 remaining in the atmosphere has changed to > a large extent over the last 150 years. Oops, that should read "Nor does the IPCC claim that the proportion of AG CO2 remaining in the atmosphere has changed to a large extent over the last 150 years." Of course, the AMOUNT of AG CO2 remaining in the atmosphere has increased, simply because we have EMITTED much more AG CO2 over the last 150 years, but the proportion of what we have emitted has remained more or less constant. > > There is a fear that there will be a /future/ decrease in the amount of AG > CO2 that can be absorbed, but looking at trends over the last 150 years > may not be the best way of determining what will or will not happen in the > future. >
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 10 Jan 2010 16:07
On Jan 10, 12:48 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > 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_equilibriumIf 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? > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law> > > "Partial pressure of CO2 in seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in > temperature." > > That's just for serious readers. Q won't be able to see the significance.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - maybe this will help, see below. http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/calcite.shtml http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/image_archive.cgi?c=CHLOROPHYLL |