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 16:48 On Jan 11, 2:28 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:43:34 -0800, erschroedin...(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 ? Partial pressure refers to the pressure one gas in a mixture of gases exerts. That has changed, as CO2 is up 40%; therefore, its partial pressure is up 40%.
From: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 16:50 On Jan 11, 2:39 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:44:38 -0800, erschroedin...(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. So why are the oceans gaining CO2? Are you like the White Queen -- you can believe impossible things? >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. Again, why are the oceans gaining CO2? Hint: they're not saturated. > 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. Sorry, you keep forgetting about feedbacks, from increased water vapor, to decreased ice cover (and so albedo change). > > Trying to curb the increase of the atmospherical concentration of CO2 is > costly, useless and will divert humanity from more important goals.
From: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 16:51 On Jan 11, 2:56 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:45:19 -0800, erschroedin...(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. Partial pressure refers to the pressure of one gas in a mixture of gases. I think you mean the concentration of dissolved CO2. > That does not prevent oceans from absorbing CO2 because it precipitates. OK, so, as I said, the oceans are a sink for CO2, not a source. I've said that many times. > > 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.
From: erschroedinger on 11 Jan 2010 16:55 On Jan 11, 4:01 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:42:40 -0800, erschroedin...(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_equilibriumIf 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. Nope. That number refers to how long a particular CO2 molecule hangs around, not to how long CO2 in general does. A CO2 molecule lasts 3-5 years (I've also seen 10) on average before exchanging with another CO2 molecule in the biosphere, ocean, etc. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, however, is around 100 years -- that's how long it takes to have a net loss of a CO2 molecule as compared to an exchange. That's why CO2 is up 40%. > > > > >> 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). Because the CO2 has to be transported to the lower part of the ocean, and that's slow. > > 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. Q: Is there sample of limewater as deep as the ocean? Come back when you know the answer. > > 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." So where is the CO2 coming from if not from fossil fuel emissions? Again, not the oceans -- they're gaining, not losing CO2. And where is all the CO2 from fossil fuel emissions going? That adds up to twice the atmospheric CO2 increase. > > 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 ? > Read some basic chemistry. > > > >> 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: Sirius on 11 Jan 2010 17:41
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:50:19 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote : >> What is sure is that increasing ocean temperature cause a release of >> CO2 in atmosphere. > > > So why are the oceans gaining CO2? Are you like the White Queen -- you > can believe impossible things? Possible. Oceans contain CO2 in solution but it does not stop here. CO2 + H2O + Ca2+ <=> CaCO3 + 2 H+ http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm "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)." > >>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. > > Again, why are the oceans gaining CO2? Hint: they're not saturated. Why is CO2 in atmosphere increasing ? Hint : slight ocean temperature increase, and the solubility of carbon dioxide & oxygen increases with decreasing temperatures. > > >> 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. > > Sorry, you keep forgetting about feedbacks, from increased water vapor, > to decreased ice cover (and so albedo change). Only suggested by computer models with built in feedbacks. Feed back proven by the model designer, not by actual data. |