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: columbiaaccidentinvestigation on 11 Jan 2010 19:55 On Jan 11, 4:45 pm, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...(a)gmail.com> wrote:"" laughing, someday you may have a brain...
From: erschroedinger on 12 Jan 2010 11:08 On Jan 11, 5:41 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:50:19 -0800, erschroedin...(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. Which would mean the oceans would be LOSING CO2 and they're gaining it. Why are you this dense? And all the gigatons of CO2 fossil fuel burning just disppears into another universe? > > > > >> 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. No, required by laws of thermodynamics, spectroscopy, kinetics, etc. > Feed back proven by the model designer, not by actual data.
From: Sirius on 12 Jan 2010 16:02 On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:45 -0800, erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote : >> >> 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. > No time to comment on all of your approximations. The answers to your questions are here : http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm For example this one (speed of reaction) : "Experimentally it has been found that CO2 and pure water at 25 degrees C reaches 99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO2 in the air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH- values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996)." "13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model." Details, explanations and references appear in the subsequent paragraphs of the document. Calcium carbonate is a the primary chemical buffer for CO2. "Such a situation would not fit the heavily criticized atmospheric CO2 level rise constructed by Callendar (1958) as characterized by Bolin & Eriksson (1959) as: "deduced from a careful survey of all available measurements". Bolin & Eriksson (1959) goes on to model an ocean without its primary chemical buffer agent calcium carbonate and without organic matter (like all later carbon cycle modellers also have done)."
From: erschroedinger on 12 Jan 2010 16:27 On Jan 12, 4:02 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:45 -0800, erschroedin...(a)gmail.com wrote : > > >> >> 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. > > No time to comment on all of your approximations. > > The answers to your questions are here : > > http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm > No they aren't. Not correct answers at least. It's like: Q. What happened to the dinosaurs? A. Humans hunted them to extinction. OK, that's an "answer" to the question. > For example this one (speed of reaction) : > "Experimentally it has been found that CO2 and pure water at 25 degrees C > reaches 99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after > shaking (like wave agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours > and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO2 in the air, the > equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about > 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached > within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH- > values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water > and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996)." > > "13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric > residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its > current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This > proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". > IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon > annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model." > > Details, explanations and references appear in the subsequent paragraphs > of the document. > > Calcium carbonate is a the primary chemical buffer for CO2. > "Such a situation would not fit the heavily criticized atmospheric CO2 > level rise constructed by Callendar (1958) as characterized by Bolin & > Eriksson (1959) as: "deduced from a careful survey of all available > measurements". Bolin & Eriksson (1959) goes on to model an ocean without > its primary chemical buffer agent calcium carbonate and without organic > matter (like all later carbon cycle modellers also have done)."
From: Marvin the Martian on 12 Jan 2010 19:51
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:51:50 -0500, P. Rajah wrote: > Jay Stevens Maharaj aka the jumpin' jackass jyotishithead wrote: > >> 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. > > IBD's editorials are typically worth less than the ink in the column. > Many IBD readers have told me that they ignore the editorials(which > sometimes read like a Pat Robertson op-ed), and subscribe only for > business coverage. The editors of IBD should stick to business news, and > keep out of the "business" of right-wing propaganda. > > http://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+ports+ice-free > > When the superpowers rush to develop year-round military capabilities > based on ice-free Arctic ports, they aren't doing it as a theoretical > exercise. Humm. In reply to a reasoned article on scientific research, this thing spews illogical gibber. And not without a big dose of irony. The science is just a repeat of some well known chemistry of equilibrium, and doesn't even go far enough. :-) |