|
|
Post by enough on Aug 7, 2009 21:43:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 7, 2009 21:51:17 GMT
It's a common confusion, neither are incorrect, they are residence times for different things. Apples and Oranges.
The 5 years is the residence time for an average molecule of co2. That's true even if atmospheric co2 level isn't changing.
The longer time frame is how long it takes for a rise in co2 level to drop back down to where it started.
The paper, the article and the website are just total BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 7, 2009 23:26:23 GMT
It's a common confusion, neither are incorrect, they are residence times for different things. Apples and Oranges. The 5 years is the residence time for an average molecule of co2. That's true even if atmospheric co2 level isn't changing. The longer time frame is how long it takes for a rise in co2 level to drop back down to where it started. The paper, the article and the website are just total BS. that is holding steady the rate my tomato garden sucks up CO2. . . .right? Gotta keep those clean and clear theoretical guidelines in place and not mess it up with any real world stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 8, 2009 1:27:37 GMT
no not right
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 8, 2009 1:30:44 GMT
The longer time frame is how long it takes for a rise in co2 level to drop back down to where it started. Can you share a reference on how that was determined? Considering all the variables, I would expect every instance of a decline to be the result of a unique set of events, producing a huge range of different decline rates. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 8, 2009 1:38:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2009 2:29:29 GMT
Seems like normal level of co2 is prevelant in the article, yet it doesn't define what the author considers normal level. During the predominant periods of history of the earth, the level of co2 has been approx 6-8 times as high as present, so one would have to assume that this author is hoping for a continued rise in co2, to at least get close to what has geologically speaking, a more normal level in his eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 8, 2009 2:52:29 GMT
Don't you all know AGW CO2 is a "special" molecule. That's why they can't find the missing CO2 sink  Of course, socold fails to mention the references using by Segalstad to determine atmospheric residence time of CO2. Once again, like so many other things, IPCC found their Golden Child and ran with it, ignoring all other sources. www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm The atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime; turnover time) of CO2 has been quantified based on measurements of natural radiocarbon (carbon-14) levels in the atmosphere and the ocean surface; the changes in those levels caused by anthropogenic effects, like "bomb carbon-14" added to the atmosphere by nuclear explosions; and the "Suess Effect" caused by the addition of old carbon-14-free CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels; and the application of gas exchange theory to rates determined for the inert radioactive gas radon-222. The results from these measurements are shown in Table 2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist (1985), in addition to the solubility data of Murray (1992), and the carbon-13/carbon-12 mass-balance calculation of Segalstad (1992). Both of the last two recent methods happened to give a lifetime of 5.4 years based on completely different methods. | Authors [publication year] | Residence time (years) | | Based on natural carbon-14 | | | Craig [1957] | 7 +/- 3 | | Revelle & Suess [1957] | 7 | | Arnold & Anderson [1957] including living and dead biosphere | 10 | | (Siegenthaler, 1989) | 4-9 | | Craig [1958] | 7 +/- 5 | | Bolin & Eriksson [1959] | 5 | | Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] | 8 | | Craig [1963] | 5-15 | | Keeling [1973b] | 7 | | Broecker [1974] | 9.2 | | Oeschger et al. [1975] | 6-9 | | Keeling [1979] | 7.53 | | Peng et al. [1979] | 7.6 (5.5-9.4) | | Siegenthaler et al. [1980] | 7.5 | | Lal & Suess [1983] | 3-25 | | Siegenthaler [1983] | 7.9-10.6 | | Kratz et al. [1983] | 6.7 | | Based on Suess Effect | | | Ferguson [1958] | 2 (1-8) | | Bacastow & Keeling [1973] | 6.3-7.0 | | Based on bomb carbon-14 | | | Bien & Suess [1967] | >10 | | Münnich & Roether [1967] | 5.4 | | Nydal [1968] | 5-10 | | Young & Fairhall [1968] | 4-6 | | Rafter & O'Brian [1970] | 12 | | Machta (1972) | 2 | | Broecker et al. [1980a] | 6.2-8.8 | | Stuiver [1980] | 6.8 | | Quay & Stuiver [1980] | 7.5 | | Delibrias [1980] | 6 | | Druffel & Suess [1983] | 12.5 | | Siegenthaler [1983] | 6.99-7.54 | | Based on radon-222 | | | Broecker & Peng [1974] | 8 | | Peng et al. [1979] | 7.8-13.2 | | Peng et al. [1983] | 8.4 | | Based on solubility data | | | Murray (1992) | 5.4 | | Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance | | | Segalstad (1992) | 5.4 |
[/td][/tr] [/table] |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 8, 2009 15:19:40 GMT
Some reading comprehension wouldn't go amiss magellan.
I clearly said both the ~5 year and ~1000 year residence times are correct. They are measurements of different things.
All the papers you cite are simply calculations of the lifetime of a typical co2 molecule in the atmosphere. They are not calculating how long it would take an increase in co2 level to fall back to where it started.
If Segalstad and co2science don't know the difference they are either incredibly ignorant of basics in this area, therefore giving us pause to even bother listening to them (although too late, co2science.org has pulled silly stunts like this before I stopped taking them seriously long ago). How on Earth could someone put enough research into the matter to write a paper about something but not realize the actual definitions of what they were writing about?
No wonder it got published in a little known journal called "Fuel and Energy".
All the clues were there but in the uncritically thinking world of climate skepticism, BS like co2science is gospel.
Edit: Funny, I just read the start of the article again:
Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: "This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean".
That is such a big clue for the author that they have confused something. The IPCC report reviewed by so many people is hardly likely to directly contradict itself in such an obvious way. The author should have been immediately skeptical of his perception of such an obvious contradiction and questioned his own understanding first.
Such a big clue was handed to him on a plate. What a waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 8, 2009 18:41:01 GMT
I clearly said both the ~5 year and ~1000 year residence times are correct. Yep big is small and tall is short. So how deep does it have to be buried before its outside of the "natural" carbon cycle? We sure don't want to influence this anthropogenically by growing tomatoes for human consumption. . . .right? That will just serve to keep the carbon cycle going. Exhale some CO2 and it will take another 5 years to make another tomato. That cycle could go on forever! Eeeeeegads!!! |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 9, 2009 0:36:37 GMT
Some reading comprehension wouldn't go amiss magellan. I clearly said both the ~5 year and ~1000 year residence times are correct. They are measurements of different things. All the papers you cite are simply calculations of the lifetime of a typical co2 molecule in the atmosphere. They are not calculating how long it would take an increase in co2 level to fall back to where it started. If Segalstad and co2science don't know the difference they are either incredibly ignorant of basics in this area, therefore giving us pause to even bother listening to them (although too late, co2science.org has pulled silly stunts like this before I stopped taking them seriously long ago). How on Earth could someone put enough research into the matter to write a paper about something but not realize the actual definitions of what they were writing about? No wonder it got published in a little known journal called "Fuel and Energy". All the clues were there but in the uncritically thinking world of climate skepticism, BS like co2science is gospel. Edit: Funny, I just read the start of the article again: Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: "This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean".That is such a big clue for the author that they have confused something. The IPCC report reviewed by so many people is hardly likely to directly contradict itself in such an obvious way. The author should have been immediately skeptical of his perception of such an obvious contradiction and questioned his own understanding first. Such a big clue was handed to him on a plate. What a waste. Do you even know what 'Energy and Fuels' is? Believe or not socold, there are other journals out there besides those that have become little more than rubber stamps for AGW cultists masquerading as scientists. The Solomon paper is another model based hypothesis that can can't be falsified and should never see the light of day outside Newseek or The Globe, this is climate "science". After multiple failures of current climate model key components one would think you'd be a bit suspicious, but alas reality is not a prerequisite for a True Believer. Will you ever cite actual research articles that can be challenged or continue to give lectures and platitudes? BTW, Segalstad was an expert reviewer for IPCC I clearly said both the ~5 year and ~1000 year residence times are correct. They are measurements of different things Yes, one is based on actual scientific experiment, the other is by untested climate models. It's not difficult to figure it out. Criticism of CO2Science may be a valid issue, but have you ever once looked at the countless gaffs and outright lies by RealClimate? it is well documented with three such examples just this year with more on the way; Steig, Rahmstorf, Schmidt......"peer reviewed". David Stockwell goes right to the heart of these "peer reviewed" AGW papers and exposes their mistakes and parlor tricks, including that of Tamino (aka G Foster), another lap dog for Mann, Schmidt and Hansen. landshape.org/enm/recent-climate-observations-disagreement-with-projections/ |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 1:01:31 GMT
So you agree that Segalstad's paper is junk because it conflates two seperate concepts that even you agree are seperate?
The opening post says "cross posts from IceCap and others" suggesting that this junk paper being passed around the usual channels uncritically (no suprise there)
"Expert Reviewer" simply means he requested the draft report and commented on it. It's not a mark of authority or an indication he accepted the IPCC conclusions at any point. There's a rich history on denialist propaganda sites of using the term "expert reviewer" as an authority boosting phrase. As appeals to authority are requently frowned upon I shudder to think how a false appeal to authority is percieved.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 1:09:03 GMT
I read your link, the issue with Rahmstorf 2007 is pathetically inane compared to the gross flaw in Segalstad's paper.
What's more you seem to be trying to change the subject from Segalstad's paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 9, 2009 2:28:50 GMT
I read your link, the issue with Rahmstorf 2007 is pathetically inane compared to the gross flaw in Segalstad's paper. What's more you seem to be trying to change the subject from Segalstad's paper. Actually you haven't highlighted a flaw in Segalstad's (and many other's) assessment, but are simply cutting and pasting from some AGW talking point website you are apparently too bashful to link to. It really is amazing that basic chemical processes are ignored by climate "science". Is the Solomon paper based on climate models or not? Please answer that so we understand where you stand. That's funny socold, because Rahmstorf 2007 is quoted as authoritative material by policy makers concerning global warming climate change climate chaos(?), yet you say it is "inane". Rahmstorf has been bandied about in journals, media outlets, bloviating politicians etc. It's called data padding socold, and is considered not only improper, but dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Aug 9, 2009 3:47:30 GMT
|
|
