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: bw on 10 Jan 2010 21:13 "Bill Ward" <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:YaadnVNRA_JzpNfWnZ2dnUVZ_qli4p2d(a)giganews.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:01:47 +0000, Sirius wrote: > >> >> 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. Tom V. Segalstad deserves great credit for his work. As a geologist, he underestimates the biological component of climate feedbacks. Eg. boreal forests are at least 100 tonnes per hectare. Thats 10 kilograms of biomass per square meter, and those forests cover nearly 20 percent of land surface. Trees (cellulose) are over 90 percent carbon dioxide, all of that coming from the atmosphere.
From: Roving rabbit on 11 Jan 2010 00:57 bw wrote: > "Bill Ward" <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message > news:YaadnVNRA_JzpNfWnZ2dnUVZ_qli4p2d(a)giganews.com... >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:01:47 +0000, Sirius wrote: >> >>> 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. > > Tom V. Segalstad deserves great credit for his work. As a geologist, he > underestimates the biological component of climate feedbacks. Eg. boreal > forests are at least 100 tonnes per hectare. Thats 10 kilograms of biomass > per square meter, and those forests cover nearly 20 percent of land surface. > Trees (cellulose) are over 90 percent carbon dioxide, all of that coming > from the atmosphere. > > That is all true, but apparently photosynthesis is not effective enough to take up the excess 8000 megaton per year of carbon dioxide that ends up in the atmosphere. In other words, you need 8000e6 * 1e3 / 10 extra square meters with boreal forests. Just scale this to an area, and you see that we need sqrt(8e11) by sqrt(8e11) or 895 by 895 km of boreal forest annually to compensate for our yearly output into the atmosphere. Where is this forest? Oh already see it, we just cut it away in the Amazon. An area of 895 by 895 km of forest is about a tenth to a hundredth you actually need to compensate for our output. Where do you want this? In the Australian desert, within the US, in the Sahara, who is going to do this. Geologists should stick to their rocks and not feel too sorry for the atmospheric pollution problem they have caused by their oil exploration resulting in a thriving global economy. The ecologic solution will be a problem for future generations to solve, the geo-engineers. Q -- The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
From: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 10:42 On Jan 10, 5:01 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> 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. Yes it is. > > First you should turn back to your chemistry course and have a look at > the law of 'chemical equilibrium'. Oh this is going to be good, since you have no grasp of science. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium > If you increase the concentration of a reactant, the chemical reaction > will tend to consume it. Uh, not really. It will shift to use up some of the excess, although the amount will remain higher than originally. Further, this says nothing about the time required. > Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in oceans > to give CaCO3 which precipitate. Which can take centuries. >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. Except the surface is pretty much saturated, so it can only absorb more CO2 when the CO2 already in the surface water slowly moves deeper. Again, this is slow. > Oceans contain enormous amounts of carbon, much more than the athmosphere.. > > The chemical reaction is not instantaneous, so the carbon is not > instantly absorbed. Exactly. Which is why atmospheric CO2 is up 40%. >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. No, that's not what it means. It means it takes one C atom this long to go into a sink and come back out -- equilibrium remember? It takes much longer for that C atom to be permanently removed. > That does not mean that half will stay > in the atmosphere forever, it will only react later, and end as CaCO3. > Much later. > 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: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 10:43 On Jan 10, 8:33 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> 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? > > "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 > > That was 6 years ago. 6 years ago we thought the housing market would continue to go up. Please keep up.
From: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 10:44
On Jan 10, 9:18 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> 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://www.perfusion.com.au/CCP/Physics&Chem/Influence%20of%20tempera... > 20on%20gas%20in%20liquid%20solubility.htm > "The solubility of carbon dioxide & oxygen increases with decreasing > temperatures." > > http://www.edf.org/documents/1336_co2andtemp.htm > > "Kuo et al. have shown [1] that the monthly concentration of atmospheric > carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii exhibits statistically significant > coherences over a range of frequencies with monthly surface air > temperatures averaged over the entire globe. The CO2 record lags behind > the temperature record; this lag is consistent with the hypothesis that > temperature fluctuations or associated meteorological changes [2] cause > the short term CO2 anomalies rather than vice versa." > > > > > Q > > Yes, the SHORT-TERM fluctuations -- the "saw-tooth" pattern in the CO2. Not the "long-term" pattern, which is up and up. Do improve your word power. |