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: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 10:45 On Jan 10, 3:42 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> 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%? > > >> 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. > > If Q actually understood basic chemistry, he'd realize that during > periods of warming oceans, they must outgas CO2 in order to maintain > equilibrium, as surely as a warm Coke must fizz. But he doesn't. > That's not correct. The oceans are not nearly saturated, and they're gaining CO2, not losing it. > He must remain innocent of any actual science knowledge to maintain his > position as group science jester, his true calling.
From: Roving rabbit on 11 Jan 2010 14:16 Bill Ward 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%? >> >> >>> 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. > > If Q actually understood basic chemistry, he'd realize that during > periods of warming oceans, they must outgas CO2 in order to maintain > equilibrium, as surely as a warm Coke must fizz. But he doesn't. > > He must remain innocent of any actual science knowledge to maintain his > position as group science jester, his true calling. > > Roman farmers had three type of tools: - Tools without a voice (like ploughs) - Tools with a voice they did not understand (like oxen) - Tools with a voice without the right to speak (like slaves) Now translate this to the real world where a right wing politician is discussing global warming. There are three types of information: - Information without a voice (newspapers, articles and reports) - Information with a voice he doesn't understand (scientists) - Information with a voice without a right to speak (voters) You see, the world has not changed in 2000 years. Q -- The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
From: Sirius on 11 Jan 2010 14:28 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:43:34 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote : >> "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. Do you mean that the variation with temperature of the partial pressure of CO2 changed over the last 6 years ?
From: Sirius on 11 Jan 2010 14:39 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:44:38 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote : >> 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. What is sure is that increasing ocean temperature cause a release of CO2 in atmosphere. As ocean have a great thermal inertia. The lag between temperature increases and CO2 increases seems to be of the order of 800 years. As we can not cool the oceans, there is nothing that can be done to curb this increase in CO2 concentration. And much more, as you could calculate by yourself with the IR absorbtion spectrum, the Beeer-Lambert law and the Stefan-Boltzman law, even in the worst case, CO2 cannot cause more than a less than 1K temperature increase. Trying to curb the increase of the atmospherical concentration of CO2 is costly, useless and will divert humanity from more important goals.
From: Sirius on 11 Jan 2010 14:56
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:45:19 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote : >> > The CaCO3 loop you describe is simply not efficient enough, otherwise >> > the atmospheric CO2 would no rise as everybody is seeing. >> >> If Q actually understood basic chemistry, he'd realize that during >> periods of warming oceans, they must outgas CO2 in order to maintain >> equilibrium, as surely as a warm Coke must fizz. But he doesn't. >> >> > That's not correct. The oceans are not nearly saturated, and they're > gaining CO2, not losing it. During a period of warming oceans, the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing. That does not prevent oceans from absorbing CO2 because it precipitates. Quote : "Furthermore, this carbonate buffer is not the only buffer active in the atmosphere / hydrosphere / lithosphere system. The Earth has a set of other buffering mineral reactions. The geochemical equilibrium system anorthite CaAl2Si2O8 - kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 has by the pH of ocean water a buffer capacity which is thousand times larger than a 0.001 M carbonate solution (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). In addition we have clay mineral buffers, and a calcium silicate + CO2 <-> calcium carbonate + SiO2 buffer (MacIntyre, 1970; Krauskopf, 1979). These buffers all act as a "security net" under the most important buffer: CO2 (g) <-> HCO3- (aq) <-> CaCO3 (s). All together these buffers give in principle an infinite buffer capacity (Stumm & Morgan, 1970)." I know 1970 is 39 years ago. But that part of mineral chemistry is still valid nowadays. |