|LoFi version for PDAs||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
Posted: Apr 18 2007, 01:23 PM
Joined: 4-March 07
Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0
Carbon cycle modelling and
the residence time of natural and
anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:
on the construction of the
"Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad
University of Oslo
Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.
It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.
Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior.
The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.
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. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle.
IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it.
Worth reading the rest of the link.
Posted: Apr 28 2007, 03:17 AM
Joined: 4-March 07
Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0
Wow not a single reply!
I was hoping someone post a credible rebuttal or make useful comments.
I posted it here because there are a number of people in this forum who have some strong interest in the field of Climate Research.This way I can learn more when people post good thinking about it.
Posted: Apr 30 2007, 11:14 PM
Illegitimi non carborundum
Group: Power Member
Joined: 14-April 05
Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205
If you study climate science long enough, particularly the modeling aspects, you find that there are any number of important model parameters, such as CO2 residence time, that don't have known values.
At best they have ranges of values, each based on different research and/or assumptions.
And there are a LOT of assumptions.
As the IPCC is fond of saying, given the way the ranges are derived there is NO JUSTIFICATION for taking the mean value as MOST LIKELY.
Which is why the models offer such a WIDE RANGE of projections, which get WIDER the further you run them.
This is NOT to say the climate will act that way.
But still MOST of the SCARE STORIES come from projections using the TOP estimates of the HOT models when run with BOGUS SCENARIOS projecting FRIGGIN AMAZING ECONOMIC GROWTH along with ZIP efforts at mitigation.
Doesn't EVERYONE like a SCARY SCENARIO?
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
Thomas B. Macaulay
Posted: May 7 2007, 08:15 PM
Joined: 7-May 07
Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 9
The article doesn't take into account total carbon in the carbon cycle. Using the stated figure of 5 years for residency in the atmosphere doesn't take into account replacement from previously earthbound sources.
Put simply, if they measure the c12 or other isotope to measure how long co2 stays in the atmosphere, they aren't taking into account plant life that will lock down that isotope they are measuring, then releasing other isotopes with yearly decay.
Given a manmade 0.2% yearly increase in carbon emissions, and a nearly static removal process (The planet isn't getting bigger) the total amount of carbon in the system will increase, even as a particular isotope being measured may seem to be disappearing. The acidity changes in the oceans should be enough by itself to warrant some serious looks at co2 levels. The oceans have a massive supply of base chemicals that keep them well above neutral ph. To lower the ph with a weak acid like co2, takes a truly phenomanol amount of co2.
Personally I think co2 is more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. We're putting out somewhere above 18 trillion btu per day, wich is tiny compared to what the sun drops on us. However we're in a fairly balanced thermal system, meaning there are limits to the nightly heat dissipation. Otherwise the planet would have cooked or frozen long ago. (Frozen most likely as we don't recieve enough energy to keep the planets water above freazing on a daily basis.)
The other things to consider is that when looking at past fluctuations, there are a lot of biological systems causing those changes. Plankton alone was enough to remove the iron from the oceans, the co2 from the atmosphere and alter the planetary climate in the process. Current processes could be as powerful or they could have an achilles heal that we've managed to step on. Either way, there is needed information lacking.
Global warming might be silly propaganda, not to take precautions would simply be the height of stupidity. It'd be like someone with a mechanical heart deciding that it'd be just fine to start tinkering with it until he figures out how it works.