CO2 Residence Time (Soloman vs Segalstad)

[jtom]

[quote author=socold board=globalwarming thread=776 post=26570 time=1249946770

Creationist geologists can come to different conclusions too. They are degreed researchers who write papers.

When they are babbling on about the fine points of how the physics of zircon crystals prove the Earth isn't older than a few thousand years old it isn't possible to show they are wrong "through the science". After all not many of us understand zircon crystals.

Often you have to look at the red flags instead and yes it is valid to do so. Cries of persecution are one such, ideological rants against the IPCC are another (when they are in a paper!). Continuous publications that receive low citation rates (ie aren't convincing other experts in the field) is another.

It isn't an equal field where one researcher is as equal as another. There are plenty of experts who try their luck outside their expertize and jump their own abilities and write horrifically flawed papers. Perhaps because they haven't studied the area they are writing a paper about enough.
[/quote]

Actually, research shows that some zircon crystals are over 4.4 billion years old. I think the creationist geologists' argument is that they look old because God made them old when they were created. I also suspect most people recognize when a scientist is not a scientist. I wouldn't call a Priest an idiot for holding such beliefs. I just wouldn't read any of his 'science' papers!

A non-peer reviewed paper is red-flag enough to be wary of a horrifically flawed paper. I suspect most everyone's aware that some (many?) people publish garbage. No need to denigrate the author. The work speaks for itself. Show how the work is garbage.

The question is, was a paper peer-reviewed, was it accepted by other scientists for publication? If the paper was, but yet is...unworthy...then the lack of citation shows that it is being ignored. So what is added by an ad hominem attack?

I'm not saying there aren't crackpots publishing 'science research' papers. I'm saying that the best way to deal with crackpot science is with real science, and when appropriate, simply ignoring the author's work (the one's whose research shows that it's getting colder because GOD has ordained it). Once you resort to name-calling you have lost the argument.

And remember that at one time, most everything we accept as fact, today, was once crackpot science. If nutty researchers had been unsuccessful in overturning 'established science', Gore would be funding ways to extract phlogiston out of the atmosphere and send it into space.

But, above all, if you must call someone a crackpot, make sure of your facts before doing so!

[icefisher]

Aug 10, 2009 23:13:16 GMT socold said:

Apart from him misrepresenting the IPCC's position.

Apart from him implying there is only one type of co2 residence time.

Its becoming clearer day by day what a sham AGW science and modeling is. OK lets get this straight. IPCC believes CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 50-200 years. But the molecules temporarily depart to places unknown every 5 to 10 years taking on average 10 to 20 excursions to this unknown place in their "pulse" lifetime.

OK, I got the concept.

IPCC science is looking like a real house of cards here. Deep ocean mixing has been underestimated grossly by the IPCC and has been proven by the lack of warming over the past decade and the evidence it has accounted for about half of the warming to date.

(if the missing heat is at the bottom of the ocean that means CO2 mixing also is not limited to the top layer either) and this constant rate CO2 exchange is a joke! It sure doesn't take 50 to 200 years for an open can of soda pop to go flat.

Oooops!!!! So this system is more dynamic than estimated by the IPCC. Not surprising for a bunch of ivory tower thinkers trying to reduce a global climate system down to a few equations.

Myself I am pulling up the easy chair, popping the popcorn in the microwave, and going to enjoy the show.

This is going to one helluva soap!!!

[nautonnier]

Aug 10, 2009 23:30:48 GMT socold said:

Aug 10, 2009 23:24:06 GMT nautonnier said:

Socold
your claim "See how stupid this is now? It's like saying "with such a short residence time for water molecules in the water tank (5 minutes), it is impossible for an extra inflow of 1 gallon per minute to cause the rise in water level in the tank" is only true if the rate of absorption of CO₂ by plants, water and the ocean is fixed like the flow of water out of your tank analogy.

No and in fact the very example I gave had the output increasing with increased water level in the tank:
"But if the extra water causes the outflow to increase, but only slightly, it could slowly drop back down to 50 gallons. It could take minutes, it could take hours, it could take days."

And here's the important part:
crucially (the amount of time to return to previous level) is not the same thing as the average lifetime of a molecule.

Ie calculating the average molecular lifetime and then claiming this gives you the residence time of an increase is just false logic, but Segalstad has done a sweet job of convincing so many people to accept such false logic.

"But if the extra water causes the outflow to increase, but only slightly, it could slowly drop back down to 50 gallons. It could take minutes, it could take hours, it could take days.";

And here's the important part:
crucially (the amount of time to return to previous level) is not the same thing as the average lifetime of a molecule.

Yes I understand the concept you are proposing - but you did not answer the question - where is the research on the speed of reabsorption of atmospheric CO₂ that shows that reabsorption of atmospheric CO₂ by oceans, rain and plants is a constant like the speed of light? Your 'slight increase in outflow' might be a directly proportionate increase in outflow. After all CO₂ is a trace gas and its quantity is immeasurably small compared with the surface area of the oceans and plant leaves. And all vegetation actively absorbs CO₂ just to stay alive and grows faster in higher concentrations of CO₂ so in some ways the plants are already the faucet opening further as CO₂ ppm increases.

So I presume that you have cites to research stating that CO₂ absorption is a constant regardless of atmospheric concentration?

[poitsplace]

Aug 11, 2009 1:49:08 GMT nautonnier said:

After all CO₂ is a trace gas and its quantity is immeasurably small compared with the surface area of the oceans and plant leaves.

Also, past fluctuations in CO2 were based more on its solubility in the oceans at different temperatures. With significantly higher concentrations the uptake is much faster. Since only half the CO2 is even showing up in the air to begin with...if we stopped today the levels would fall (early on at least) almost as fast as they rose. The higher the concentration gets, the faster it will be absorbed...which is why ever increasing emissions are resulting in only a linear increase.

If you do a rough plot on that you'll notice it's likely not even possible to double atmospheric CO2. Once we reach "peak CO2" the rate will slow. Once we stop using carbon based fuels as our primary power source (likely by about 2050) CO2 will level off or fall...probably around 500ppm.

[steve]

Aug 10, 2009 19:24:12 GMT jtom said:

Yes, I saw the bolded part. Still, please tell me, are you calling Segalstad a nut case because he had the audacity to reference a research paper you don't agree with?

BTW, the guy that Segalstad sited:
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.

Yep, ya gotta be a nut case to cite any of his research.

And I still don't see any CO2 misrepresentations. by Segalstad.

Give it up, Steve

So I take it you've not actually followed up the reference.

Strong claims demand strong evidence.

But the reference is not to any sort of reasonably peer-reviewed research, and if you read it you'll find it is just a moan about how Keeling probably didn't do his experiments right, which given that the Mauna Loa data is not the only CO2 measuring site in the world is not exactly supportable. The relevant reference is a joint private publication with Segalstad.

I'll let socold hold the torch on Segalstad's deliberate confusion of CO2 residence/lifetime issues, I've done enough in my own mind to add Segalstad to my nutjob collection that includes Jawarowski, Beck, Miskolckzi, Gerlach, Tscheusomebody and Axel-Mörner.

[northsphinx]

From cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
"In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2. "

That make it 60% transferred from the atmosphere during 150 year.
Not 5 year and not 1000 year.

CDIAC, not in the nutjob collection.

And still is the annual change is 5-6 ppm.

[magellan]

Aug 11, 2009 9:35:15 GMT northsphinx said:

From cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
"In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2. "

That make it 60% transferred from the atmosphere during 150 year.
Not 5 year and not 1000 year.

CDIAC, not in the nutjob collection.

And still is the annual change is 5-6 ppm.

LOL, the ubiquitous "missing CO2 sink".

The non-existent tropical tropospheric "hot spot" doesn't matter.

Now the missing 50% CO2 doesn't matter either.

Models trump reality again

[nautonnier]

Aug 11, 2009 9:35:15 GMT northsphinx said:

From cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
"In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2. "

That make it 60% transferred from the atmosphere during 150 year.
Not 5 year and not 1000 year.

CDIAC, not in the nutjob collection.

And still is the annual change is 5-6 ppm.

Maybe not a 'nutjob' (sic) but there is a large assumption being made that nothing else in the system is altering CO₂ concentrations in any way either up or down. As the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has altered in the prehistoric past to levels well above those currently seen, obviously other effects can raise CO₂ concentrations.

So is it a safe assumption that anthropogenic causes are the only possible reason for CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere to increase?

[steve]

CO2 levels have gone up X.

Fossil fuel CO2 probably amounts to 2X or so. Land use change estimates amount to .3X or so.

There is evidence of a rise in ocean pH. Certainly there is little evidence of a fall. Other "natural" source of CO2 such as volcanoes don't seem to have changed much, and are, in any case quite small.

Where all the CO2 has gone has not yet been satisfactorally explained. But other than secret bunkers of CO2-breathing aliens, the major fluxes and sinks appear to be known to a reasonable level of accuracy.

So the link between increasing CO2 levels and fossil fuel emissions is a current conclusion rather than an assumption.

There is an important discussion underway regarding how long or short CO2 levels are likely to remain elevated under different emissions scenarios. The problem is that Segalstad's input appears to be aiming to be unconstructive to that discussion.

[nautonnier]

If the reason for CO₂ increase is as you say solely anthropogenic I would have expected to see evidence of the current slump in manufacturing, industry and use of vehicles in the graphics of atmospheric concentration of CO₂. However, it seems to be an uninterupted linear increase - even one that was shown in another thread claiming to show variations did not align with known slumps in industry. One would expect plateaus or severe reductions in the rate of increase.

Is there a reason for this? Or have I misread the thumbnail graphs?

[socold]

Aug 11, 2009 1:49:08 GMT nautonnier said:

Yes I understand the concept you are proposing - but you did not answer the question - where is the research on the speed of reabsorption of atmospheric CO₂ that shows that reabsorption of atmospheric CO₂ by oceans, rain and plants is a constant like the speed of light? Your 'slight increase in outflow' might be a directly proportionate increase in outflow.

It is proportionate, that's why it takes so long for co2 to fall back to it's previous level, because the closer you get to the previous level the rate of absorption decreases.

[socold]

Aug 11, 2009 17:53:46 GMT nautonnier said:

If the reason for CO₂ increase is as you say solely anthropogenic I would have expected to see evidence of the current slump in manufacturing, industry and use of vehicles in the graphics of atmospheric concentration of CO₂.

That is assuming that co2 emissions have sharply dropped in the past 2 years and I don't believe they have. They may have even increased, with the rate of increase slowing down rather than reversing.

[icefisher]

Aug 11, 2009 7:26:26 GMT steve said:

Aug 10, 2009 19:24:12 GMT jtom said:

Yes, I saw the bolded part. Still, please tell me, are you calling Segalstad a nut case because he had the audacity to reference a research paper you don't agree with?

BTW, the guy that Segalstad sited:
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.

Yep, ya gotta be a nut case to cite any of his research.

And I still don't see any CO2 misrepresentations. by Segalstad.

Give it up, Steve

So I take it you've not actually followed up the reference.

Strong claims demand strong evidence.

But the reference is not to any sort of reasonably peer-reviewed research, and if you read it you'll find it is just a moan about how Keeling probably didn't do his experiments right, which given that the Mauna Loa data is not the only CO2 measuring site in the world is not exactly supportable. The relevant reference is a joint private publication with Segalstad.

Are these the private publications you are referring to?

Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. (1992 a): Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review; 2nd revised edition. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Meddelelser [Norwegian Polar Institute, Memoirs] 119, 76 pp.

Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Ono, N. (1992 b): Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? Science of the Total Environment 114, 227-284.

Aug 11, 2009 7:26:26 GMT steve said:

I'll let socold hold the torch on Segalstad's deliberate confusion of CO2 residence/lifetime issues, I've done enough in my own mind to add Segalstad to my nutjob collection that includes Jawarowski, Beck, Miskolckzi, Gerlach, Tscheusomebody and Axel-Mörner.

That will be a growing list. . . .probably right up to the day everybody is a nut case but you.

Segalstad throws Henry's Law on the table for the warmistas. So far no response but ad hominems and handwaving.

Like clouds here is another function. This time in the ocean that could dilute anthropogenic CO2 emissions into such a vast pool that it becomes irrelevant in the face of natural cycles.

Obviously the CO2 is not staying in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years. Socold even concedes that point. But he is afraid to describe where its going because that has been modeled in a way that a very small proportion of new CO2 is there.

The argument is supported by ocean models that postulate a very thin ocean layer interacting with the atmosphere with a stable deep cold water layer underneath.

But as Hansen reaches deep into the ocean in search of his missing heat. . . .and also probably the answer as to why CO2 trails temperatures by up to 800 years. . . .this onion unpeels right along with it and anthropogenic contributions shrink to virtually nothing while natural processes like a LIA recovery going on for 400 years becomes the real force (Akasofu).

Cold LIA CO2 rich ocean waters cycling to the surface, toasting in the post LIA sun and casting off CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is too neat! Preserves GLC's reduced radiation model but substitutes the source with the anthropogenic contribution becoming a speck. . . .4%(Segalstat). Somebody else will have to do the math. Lets see now, 1 degree rise in a bit over a century with the anthropogenic portion being .04 C.

One has to feel very uneasy when the process of ocean absorption and reemission of CO2 is blown off with the wave of a hand. . . .especially now the old religion of no (irrelevant) ocean mixing has been revised by its apostle and ocean mixing has become the new religion of the missing heat.

They prefer dealing with the missing heat issue in a vacuum. But the fact is when failed models start getting bandaids applied, its usually found the problem is more fundamental not just superficial. superficial fixes are more an earmark of models that have been preforming well.

One can tell Segalstat has the AGW guys by the balls because nobody will argue with him, instead they just cast ad hominems his way.

Actually there is no better way of identifying who the nut is than that. Copernicus was accused of being a nut too.

[nautonnier]

Aug 11, 2009 18:11:25 GMT socold said:

Aug 11, 2009 17:53:46 GMT nautonnier said:

If the reason for CO₂ increase is as you say solely anthropogenic I would have expected to see evidence of the current slump in manufacturing, industry and use of vehicles in the graphics of atmospheric concentration of CO₂.

That is assuming that co2 emissions have sharply dropped in the past 2 years and I don't believe they have. They may have even increased, with the rate of increase slowing down rather than reversing.

Well your belief may already be a falsified hypothesis...

After 2008 witnessed a US emissions fall of almost 3% (due mostly to oil demand decreasing in response to higher prices), all fossil fuels are contributing to this year’s emissions drop. Coal has the biggest drop, now estimated to be ~6.9% due to lower industrial demand and low-priced natural gas replacing some coal in the electricity sector. Oil demand is revised downward from June to a fall of 3.3% for the year. And natural gas was revised downward to a consumption level 2.3% below 2008. All of these drops translate into energy-related emissions that are 4.3% below last year.
1990 Levels Not Far Away
Such a drop would make 2009 emissions just ~6.5% above 1990 levels and already 7.5% below 2005 levels.

setenergy.org/2009/07/07/eia-us-emissions-to-dive-more-than-4-in-2009/

"Finding proof of the effect of rising fuel prices on the average American requires little more than a trip to your local used car lot, freshly filled with SUVs and pickups while subcompacts see significant markups. But more evidence of the impact of the rising price of fuel has come in the form of figures showing Americans drove 30 billion fewer miles between November 2007 and April 2008 than they did for the 2006-2007 period."
www.motorauthority.com/blog/1023785_u-s-drivers-travel-30-billion-miles-less-than-last-year

"The Federal Highway Administration reported today (direct link here) that travel during November 2008 on all U.S. roads and streets fell by -5.3% compared to November 2007. This drop marks the thirteenth consecutive month of traffic volume decline compared to the same month in the previous year. Travel YTD through November 2008 also fell by -3.7% compared to 2007."

mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/01/traffic-volume-continues-to-decrease-in.html

and China...

"But China has made significant progress in the last three years, suggesting the power of setting targets and of being mindful of the advantages of the underlying goals—including saving money by saving energy. The efficiency gains were largest in some of the most energy-intensive sectors, including power generation, steel production and mining, where the government gave targets to individual companies and monitored them closely. The latest figures, released on January 22nd, reveal energy intensity reductions of 1.8% in 2006, 3.7% in 2007, and 4.2% in 2008, surpassing the 4% annualized goal. It now looks likely that China will be able to reach its 20% goal by 2010."

www.wri.org/stories/2009/02/measuring-climate-change-progress-china

Now I _would_ expect to see some change in the rate of increase in CO₂ emissions we are now talking about the two largest emitting countries responsible together for 40% of the world output of CO₂ - China leveling off and the US actually dropping. If the Mauna Loa graph is showing its continual linear climb in CO₂ for 2008-2009 then we should start to smell a rat and check what they are actually measuring.

[steve]

Icefisher,

The ad hominem comments are a bit silly really. I've stated quite clearly why I don't believe what Segalstad says, so attack the substantive points I've made and don't moan about a few rude remarks.

The relevant publication was the first one - the one described as a "memoir". To be honest, it wouldn't matter if it was published in Nature, the relevant part of the paper is easy to dismiss.

Nautonnier,

CO2 levels go up 1-2ppm per year don't they? So if there is a 5% decrease in oil gas and coal usage they might go up 0.95-1.9% per year instead. Possibly you wouldn't notice the difference unless the decrease was sustained?