|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 4:28:18 GMT
I have highlighted a critical flaw in Segalstad's assessment that even you accept.
1) There is an average lifetime of a co2 molecule in the atmosphere
2) There is an amount of time it takes for an increase in co2 to be entirely absorbed
3) The IPCC report provides values for both
4) Segalstad thinks the value of #2 is wrong because it differs from the value of #1 and is confused why the IPCC "contradicts" itself not realizing they are seperate values for seperate concepts.
5) Segalstad Fail
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2009 10:47:24 GMT
I have highlighted a critical flaw in Segalstad's assessment that even you accept. 1) There is an average lifetime of a co2 molecule in the atmosphere 2) There is an amount of time it takes for an increase in co2 to be entirely absorbed 3) The IPCC report provides values for both 4) Segalstad thinks the value of #2 is wrong because it differs from the value of #1 and is confused why the IPCC "contradicts" itself not realizing they are seperate values for seperate concepts. 5) Segalstad Fail Thats an ignorant interpretation of Segalstad. What I am reading from Segalstad is the system forces an equilibrium and the basis of the IPCC models are built on ocean models that ignore the oceans primary carbonate buffers and organic matter and how those things sequester carbon. Thus it is stupid to say without evidence or an argument why Segalstad doesn't understand the concept when in fact he is impaling it and leaving it in the middle of the highway for folks to get the message. Perhaps you can elucidate on how the IPCC carbon system evades those chemical forcings in the carbon cycle what the implications of such a short circuited system would have had on the fossil formations at Dover. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 16:13:56 GMT
I am interpreting it correctly, it's quite straight forward what he says and what he says is utter BS of the highest degree.
Both him and Essenhigh both cite the average liftetime of an average co2 molecule and falsely compare this with the IPCC figure for co2 pulse absorption time.
Furthermore they both even throws out the false claim that human emissions are a small proportion of total emissions therefore they are a small proportion of the co2 rise, as well as the false claim that "The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa."
It's pseudo-science pure and simple, this is creationist "I've proved the Earth is 6,000 years old" level stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 9, 2009 16:55:48 GMT
I am interpreting it correctly, it's quite straight forward what he says and what he says is utter BS of the highest degree. Both him and Essenhigh both cite the average lifetime of an average co2 molecule and falsely compare this with the IPCC figure for co2 pulse absorption time. Furthermore they both even throws out the false claim that human emissions are a small proportion of total emissions therefore they are a small proportion of the co2 rise, as well as the false claim that "The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa." It's pseudo-science pure and simple, this is creationist "I've proved the Earth is 6,000 years old" level stuff. Socold: rising co2 levels are caused by increased heat levels of the planet. That is accepted science. Human emissions are a small part of the total co2 emissions. That is also accepted science. And fossil fuel co2 emissions are a very small part of total co2 emissions. We all know that. The above have nothing to do with creationist, as the above is well documented. The main question, which appears not to have been answered yet, is what does the rise in co2 levels really do to affect climate. There is that nagging question of why co2 levels continue to rise even after temp has fallen. This has happened in the past, with no good answers to date that I have read. We are back to the thing that while co2 does seem to have a correlation, the actual causation is very much in question. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 19:01:57 GMT
It's accepted science that the recent co2 rise was caused by human activity even though human emissions are a small proportion of total emissions.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2009 19:03:39 GMT
I am interpreting it correctly, it's quite straight forward what he says and what he says is utter BS of the highest degree. Both him and Essenhigh both cite the average liftetime of an average co2 molecule and falsely compare this with the IPCC figure for co2 pulse absorption time. Furthermore they both even throws out the false claim that human emissions are a small proportion of total emissions therefore they are a small proportion of the co2 rise, as well as the false claim that "The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa." It's pseudo-science pure and simple, this is creationist "I've proved the Earth is 6,000 years old" level stuff. I would say you have not interpreted it correctly. Its pretty cavalier to simply blow off ocean carbon exchange processes and biological and deep ocean sequesterization of carbon with a wave of the hand. If you have some criticism of the science you should produce the evidence. But hand waving seems to be your favorite brand of science. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 19:06:45 GMT
As if invoking "ocean carbon exchange processes and biological and deep ocean sequesterization of carbon" changes the fact they have confused two seperate IPCC definitions.
Not only that but they claim recent co2 rise is natural. That's actually a more false and worse claim.
There's nothing to read between the lines here, it is indefensible. They make simple and mundane false statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2009 19:19:31 GMT
As if invoking "ocean carbon exchange processes and biological and deep ocean sequesterization of carbon" changes the fact they have confused two seperate IPCC definitions. Not only that but they claim recent co2 rise is natural. That's actually a more false and worse claim. There's nothing to read between the lines here, it is indefensible. They make simple and mundane false statements. Actually they make their case by measuring ions of carbon to attribute sources. How did the IPCC make its case? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 9, 2009 20:00:21 GMT
As if invoking "ocean carbon exchange processes and biological and deep ocean sequestration of carbon" changes the fact they have confused two separate IPCC definitions. Not only that but they claim recent co2 rise is natural. That's actually a more false and worse claim. There's nothing to read between the lines here, it is indefensible. They make simple and mundane false statements. Actually they make their case by measuring ions of carbon to attribute sources. How did the IPCC make its case? Bingo Icefisher. I read a paper not long ago that looked at carbon by source. I was actually pretty surprised to see how little carbon man is actually adding to the atmosphere. I didn't save the paper, which was very foolish on my part as I usually have to read them several times to understand them, but the jist of the paper I read indicated that by source, meaning carbon 12, 13, 14 etc, man had NOT contributed nearly the carbon that had been indicated. I find it amazing that some would believe that with our increase in temps that the carbon level would stay at 280 PPM. Uh huh........yep........now that WOULD be a first on the rise side of co2 buildup. I, of course, realize that co2 will continue to rise for 100's of years after the temp has dropped like a rock. That has been the historical precedent, and I don't think that will change during this cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 9, 2009 23:34:21 GMT
As if invoking "ocean carbon exchange processes and biological and deep ocean sequesterization of carbon" changes the fact they have confused two seperate IPCC definitions. Not only that but they claim recent co2 rise is natural. That's actually a more false and worse claim. There's nothing to read between the lines here, it is indefensible. They make simple and mundane false statements. Actually they make their case by measuring ions of carbon to attribute sources. How did the IPCC make its case? Same way, plus more. On the last page magellan posted a table. The paper just redoes these calculations which are already reported by the IPCC. that's the entire point  Nothing new. |
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Aug 10, 2009 0:07:32 GMT
Socold,
I am unfamiliar with the calculations on the exchange rate of carbon and the residence time of a "pulse" of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, it would seem logical that much of the CO2 in the atmosphere (or at least the increase since WW2) has been caused by humanity. The rate of increase looks a little too regular to have been caused by anything other than our increase in fossil fuel use. My problem with the AGW theory is that I believe that a temperture increase is good for humanity and that increased CO2 will increase crop yields. We will NEED that if the the fossil fuel reserve and our ability to extract them are as low as I think they are..
However, a question for you: what is your understanding on the rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans and the biosphere? The deep oceans can hold a LOT of CO2!!! THey are NOWHERE near saturated (Even if the temperature rises). I would think that an increase in the atmospheric CO2 by 30% would give an opportunity for more CO2 to be absorbed (CHarles' Law) and that that rate would increase. What is your understanding of the factors and how they change as a function of temperature?
ian
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 10, 2009 0:23:36 GMT
Actually they make their case by measuring ions of carbon to attribute sources. How did the IPCC make its case? Same way, plus more. On the last page magellan posted a table. The paper just redoes these calculations which are already reported by the IPCC. that's the entire point Nothing new. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996) reports that the CO2 lifetime (residence time) in the atmosphere is 50 to 200 years. Keep trying socold..... |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 10, 2009 10:02:36 GMT
Segalstad appears to claim in this document: folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htmthat man's link to CO2 is erroneous not least because the atmospheric CO2 measurements are faulty! Unless this site is a spoof he sounds like a bit of a nut-job to me. |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 10, 2009 11:01:47 GMT
Segalstad appears to claim in this document: folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htmthat man's link to CO2 is erroneous not least because the atmospheric CO2 measurements are faulty! Unless this site is a spoof he sounds like a bit of a nut-job to me. What make you say the atmospheric CO2 measurements are faulty? The only graphs I see on the page shows them in terms of mass, not ppm, and without going through a lot of effort, they look about right. |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 10, 2009 11:13:46 GMT
Page has a long load. There is one graph showing atmos CO2 in ppm. It shows it as pretty linear from Jan '85 344ppm to Feb '08 383 ppm.
So what should it be?
|
|
