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 11 Jan 2010 16:01 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:42:40 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote : > 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. It is obviously not garbage, it is a known fertilizer. > > >> 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. I must admit that I didn't need it for years, but apparently it is still there, at least enough for the level of this group. > > >> 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. From the dozens of peer reviewed scientific articles on CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere over more than 50 years, the half-life of CO2 in atmosphere is around 3-5 years. But it is a net result, actual exchanges are much bigger. > > >> Atmospheric CO2 reacts permanently with the Calcium contained in oceans >> to give CaCO3 which precipitate. > > Which can take centuries. Why do you think that ? Calcium carbonate precipitates easily (minutes or seconds). see this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjxUwDTkd4g or this : http://www.practicalchemistry.org/experiments/how-can-hardness-in-water- be-removed,244,EX.html Quote : Demonstration a Dilute about 150 cm3 of limewater with an equal volume of distilled or deionised water. *Pass in carbon dioxide*, taking care that the gas carries over no acid spray, whereupon a milky precipitate* of calcium carbonate *soon forms*. Continue the passage of gas until all the precipitate dissolves, giving a solution of calcium hydrogencarbonate. This is temporarily hard water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate > > >>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. Your own supposition ? Or some credible source ? Cite ? > > >> 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%. "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." I know 6 to 10 years old physics, the IPCC (very likely) reversed the laws of physics in this time interval. > > >>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. Cite ? > > >> That does not mean that half will stay in the atmosphere forever, it >> will only react later, and end as CaCO3. >> >> > Much later. ? Cite ? > > >> 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: Bill Ward on 11 Jan 2010 16:05 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:16:38 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote: > 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. True enough. Jesters were needed too, but unlike Q, they didn't take themselves seriously. The modern right of free speech doesn't include the right to be believed. That requires the ability to explain what you're saying in a logical, convincing manner.
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 11 Jan 2010 16:15 On Jan 11, 1:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:"" thats funny, one can explain a topic in a logical manner, but the person who feels they need to be convinced must also read and listen with objectivity and with honesty. I dont take you serious, as you dont act with objectivity, or honesty, which kind of shows you are not willing to uphold your 50% responsiblity in such a discussion. Blaming others for your lack of responsiblity, is just another case against your integrity, making you the punch line of the joke.
From: mrbawana2u on 11 Jan 2010 16:26 On Jan 11, 4:15 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:"" > > thats funny, one can explain a topic in a logical manner, [???] how come you never have done that, you insipid liar?
From: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 11 Jan 2010 16:33
On Jan 11, 1:26 pm, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...(a)gmail.com> wrote:" how come you never have done that, you insipid liar?" you mean i lied when i said i though you were a human, cool, i know you are a troll. |