Quote:

Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air Guest Editorial by Tom V. Segalstad Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology The University of Oslo, Norway Volume 12, Number 31: 5 August 2009 In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources. Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate"]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. 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". Some 99% of the atmospheric CO2 molecules are 12CO2 molecules containing the stable isotope 12C (Segalstad, 1982). To calculate the RT of the bulk atmospheric CO2 molecule 12CO2, Essenhigh (2009) uses the IPCC data of 1990 with a total mass of carbon of 750 gigatons in the atmospheric CO2 and a natural input/output exchange rate of 150 gigatons of carbon per year (Houghton et al., 1990). The characteristic decay time (denoted by the Greek letter tau) is simply the former value divided by the latter value: 750 / 150 = 5 years. This is a similar value to the ~5 years found from 13C/12C carbon isotope mass balance calculations of measured atmospheric CO2 13C/12C carbon isotope data by Segalstad (1992); the ~5 years obtained from CO2 solubility data by Murray (1992); and the ~5 years derived from CO2 chemical kinetic data by Stumm & Morgan (1970). Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009) reviews measurements of 14C from 1963 up to 1995, and finds that the RT of atmospheric 14CO2 is ~16 (16.3) years. He also uses the 14C data to find that the time value (exchange time) for variation of the concentration difference between the northern and southern hemispheres is ~2 (2.2) years for atmospheric 14CO2. This result compares well with the observed hemispheric transport of volcanic debris leading to "the year without a summer" in 1816 in the northern hemisphere after the 1815 Tambora volcano cataclysmic eruption in Indonesia in 1815. Read the rest here http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Quote:

Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor.

That's a non sequitur. The residence time for a given CO2 atom in the atmosphere may be 5 years, but the residence time in the biosphere is much longer.

It conveniently ignores the fact that natural fluxes to the atmosphere are balanced by similar magnitude fluxes from the atmosphere to the biosphere.  The carbon sink itself is limited.

you do realise that a relatively simple mass balance with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere or oceans (or both) can be carried out ? (and has been)

to suggest that CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels merely lingers in the atmosphere for 5 years and then mysteriously vanishes is rather silly don't you think?

we also know that CO2 interacts both biologically and chemically with the earths various systems

---

Muso while I respect your scientific background, I don't think you are an expert in climate change science.

You may understand more than the average joe blogs but from what I can tell you haven't really worked on climate science as part of team of scientists doing investigations, otherwise you would have said so.

The amount of independent scientists that are investigating climate change science and writing papers that contradict the IPCC pseudo climate change science is growing.

It wont be long before the MAJORITY of scientists START to say that the IPCC has got it all WRONG.

Here is another very precise paper that finds the following,




Quote:

Global and Planetary Change Ole Humluma, b, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway 12. Conclusions There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature. (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. (5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris. (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2. Read all here Global and Planetary Change http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Quote:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature Abstract Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Quote:

Highlights ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

I'm not going to investigate every single cut and paste that you have from the denialist establishment.

Real Climate have alread debunked this paper here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/

If you are going to cut and paste while obviously not understanding the underlying science, I don't see why I should have to do the hard work of debunking it each time.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

I'm not going to investigate every single cut and paste that you have from the denialist establishment. Real Climate have alread debunked this paper here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/ If you are going to cut and paste while obviously not understanding the underlying science, I don't see why I should have to do the hard work of debunking it each time.

You don't have to investigate anything muso....!!!

Besides your opinion is your opinion you're entitled to it, just like the rest of us.

I'm just pointing out the fact that many prominent scientists around the world dispute the IPCC's stance that ,

ALL THE WARMING IS DUE ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 EMISSIONS.

If you want to keep the blinkers on that's fine with me, but don't turn around and tell me your a scientist either.

Scientists are (shall) always be open for reinterpretation of any science no matter how sacred it may be.

Until that time muso I'm afraid you have joined on a religion that spouts pseudo science so that the elite may tax the air we breath and laugh all the way to the bank.

Ajax wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:

muso wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 7:54pm: I'm not going to investigate every single cut and paste that you have from the denialist establishment. Real Climate have alread debunked this paper here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/ If you are going to cut and paste while obviously not understanding the underlying science, I don't see why I should have to do the hard work of debunking it each time. You don't have to investigate anything muso....!!! Besides your opinion is your opinion you're entitled to it, just like the rest of us. I'm just pointing out the fact that many prominent scientists around the world dispute the IPCC's stance that , ALL THE WARMING IS DUE ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 EMISSIONS. If you want to keep the blinkers on that's fine with me, but don't turn around and tell me your a scientist either. Scientists are should always be open for reinterpretation of any science no matter how sacred it may be. Until that time muso I'm afraid you have joined on a religion that spouts pseudo science so that the elite may tax the air we breath and laugh all the way to the bank.

Ajax,
You don't even understand the basic concepts of precision and accuracy, so I can easily understand why you don't have a functioning BS meter.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

Ajax, You don't even understand the basic concepts of precision and accuracy, so I can easily understand why you don't have a functioning BS meter.

Did you see Suzuki on Q&A the other night, he hasn't got a smacking clue about climate science yet he will believe anything the IPCC writes and reports.

He says "because their the experts"........?????

So why does he go around promoting something he doesn't fully understand........??????

Its a religion I tellsya nothing but a religion.....similar to the orange people, instead of worshipping Acharya Rajneesh, you worship Rajendra K. Pachauri head of the IPCC.

How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????

Easy Question - Too much.

You see, Essenhigh's paper is better known as the amazing CO2 molecule disappearance trick.  Now you see it, now you don't. The fact that it's rapidly moving from atmosphere to land biosphere to atmosphere to ocean is not relevant. It's still in there.

You open the atmosphere cup after 5 years and (gasps of amazement) it's not there!

---

Dnarever wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:29am:

How much CO2 is from manmade sources..???? Easy Question - Too much.

346 gigatonnes since industrialisation to 2008 plus an additional ~ 140 Gigatonnes since 2008 (conservative figure). That doesn't include land use changes. Divide by 3.67 for carbon.

(Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv  from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.)

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

You see, Essenhigh's paper is better known as the amazing CO2 molecule disappearance trick.  Now you see it, now you don't. The fact that it's rapidly moving from atmosphere to land biosphere to atmosphere to ocean is not relevant. It's still in there. You open the atmosphere cup after 5 years and (gasps of amazement) it's not there!

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 6:29am: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..???? Easy Question - Too much. 346 gigatonnes since industrialisation to 2008 plus an additional ~ 140 Gigatonnes since 2008 (conservative figure). That doesn't include land use changes. Divide by 3.67 for carbon. (Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv  from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.)

I'm afraid better qualified people who have done the research disagree with you......!!!!

You know you trying to debunk every scientist who is against the IPCC pseudo science is really comical...!!!!!!

It's perfectly valid to say that a CO2 molecule has a residence time of about 5 years in the atmosphere. It's also not very relevant. It might go on holiday, but it keeps coming back, unless it forms part of the shell of an organism.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

you do realise that a relatively simple mass balance with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere or oceans (or both) can be carried out ? (and has been) to suggest that CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels merely lingers in the atmosphere for 5 years and then mysteriously vanishes is rather silly don't you think? we also know that CO2 interacts both biologically and chemically with the earths various systems

Hi Chimp. I wanted to ask about your flow rate formula. Basically the last bit indicates the flow rate out of the system and I always thought we lived in a closed system, hence the problem with ongoing polution of the environment we need to sustain us. Hell if it makes things warmer, cooler, windier or wetter matters little in the long run, providing that environment is still able to sustain us. To my mind that is the real issue and not the stupidly derailed to the point of ludicrous climate change debate.

So, do we or don't we live in a closed system?

Ajax wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Quote: Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air Guest Editorial by Tom V. Segalstad Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology The University of Oslo, Norway Volume 12, Number 31: 5 August 2009 In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources. Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate"]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. 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". Some 99% of the atmospheric CO2 molecules are 12CO2 molecules containing the stable isotope 12C (Segalstad, 1982). To calculate the RT of the bulk atmospheric CO2 molecule 12CO2, Essenhigh (2009) uses the IPCC data of 1990 with a total mass of carbon of 750 gigatons in the atmospheric CO2 and a natural input/output exchange rate of 150 gigatons of carbon per year (Houghton et al., 1990). The characteristic decay time (denoted by the Greek letter tau) is simply the former value divided by the latter value: 750 / 150 = 5 years. This is a similar value to the ~5 years found from 13C/12C carbon isotope mass balance calculations of measured atmospheric CO2 13C/12C carbon isotope data by Segalstad (1992); the ~5 years obtained from CO2 solubility data by Murray (1992); and the ~5 years derived from CO2 chemical kinetic data by Stumm & Morgan (1970). Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated from data for the trace atmospheric molecule 14CO2, containing the radioactive isotope14C, that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion" would be only 1.2% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years, and 1.73% for a CO2 lifetime of 7 years (Segalstad, 1998). Essenhigh (2009) reviews measurements of 14C from 1963 up to 1995, and finds that the RT of atmospheric 14CO2 is ~16 (16.3) years. He also uses the 14C data to find that the time value (exchange time) for variation of the concentration difference between the northern and southern hemispheres is ~2 (2.2) years for atmospheric 14CO2. This result compares well with the observed hemispheric transport of volcanic debris leading to "the year without a summer" in 1816 in the northern hemisphere after the 1815 Tambora volcano cataclysmic eruption in Indonesia in 1815. Read the rest here http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Water vapour is part of the hydrological cycle whereas CO2 is being injected into the system!

  :D :D :D :D :D :D

My dear looper.... you have nothing and I am very sorry to have to deliver this news but you are not unlike a dog chasing after it's own farty soundy thing  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Sorry bra, best go back to browbeating one of your tryhard Peter Costello groupies with daddys propaganda I suppose?????????

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 4:04pm: you do realise that a relatively simple mass balance with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere or oceans (or both) can be carried out ? (and has been) to suggest that CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels merely lingers in the atmosphere for 5 years and then mysteriously vanishes is rather silly don't you think? we also know that CO2 interacts both biologically and chemically with the earths various systems Hi Chimp. I wanted to ask about your flow rate formula. Basically the last bit indicates the flow rate out of the system and I always thought we lived in a closed system, hence the problem with ongoing polution of the environment we need to sustain us. Hell if it makes things warmer, cooler, windier or wetter matters little in the long run, providing that environment is still able to sustain us. To my mind that is the real issue and not the stupidly derailed to the point of ludicrous climate change debate. So, do we or don't we live in a closed system?

Following this line of enquiry will bear you much fruit!  ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

[color=#0000ff]Water vapour is part of the hydrological cycle whereas CO2 is being injected into the system!

OOHHhhh yeah so what happens when the oceans heat up...?????

Are you trying to say that manmade CO2 emissions are the only CO2 emissions............????

We know roughly how much CO2 we are emitting into the atmosphere. Given the amount of CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere, atmospheric CO2 should be increasing at a much faster rate than it is. The only rational conclusion is that nature is a net sink. That means we humans are in fact responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we are currently observing.

MOTR wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 4:42am:

We know roughly how much CO2 we are emitting into the atmosphere. Given the amount of CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere, atmospheric CO2 should be increasing at a much faster rate than it is. The only rational conclusion is that nature is a net sink. That means we humans are in fact responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we are currently observing.

Don't ya hate it when the observations don't support the theory and its necessary to fabricate more bs to substantiate your failings. Your model is broken. Stop sucking the tax payers dollars to sustain a nonsense.

Go away and come back when you can demonstrate you are scientists not activists.

MOTR wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 4:42am:

We know roughly how much CO2 we are emitting into the atmosphere.

More of those precise "scientific" terms from the alarmist camp.

http://i39.tinypic.com/w6wkk3.jpg

Quote:

Fig. 15. Correlation coefficients between DIFF12 change in release of anthropogene CO2 (CDIAC) and global atmospheric CO2, for different lags of atmospheric CO2 in relation to CO2 from fossil fuel. Numbers in parentheses show the maximum positive correlation coefficient and the associated time lag of CO2 in months. The grey vertical arrows indicate no lag (the time of release).

Quote:

The maximum positive correlation between ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is within a range from 0.45 to 0.48, depending on which dataset is considered (HadSST2, NCDC or UAH). With a sample size of 361 (number of monthly DIFF12 values) these correlation coefficients are highly significant at the 0.05 level, and correspond to a goodness-of-fit (r2) ranging from 0.20 to 0.23. This represents a fair degree of explanation, and far bigger than achieved by any other factor considered in the present analysis, but it also suggests that there are other factors beyond ocean surface temperature which have influenced observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Examples of such potential factors are changes in soil moisture, living biomass, volcanic eruptions, geological weathering processes, burning of fossil fuels, etc. The correlation between CO2 released by anthropogene sources and changes in atmospheric CO2 is not stable (Fig. 15), and not able to explain much of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. A qualitatively identical conclusion may possibly be suggested for the effect of volcanic eruptions during the study period, but the character of the volcanic data available does not make it possible to carry out a comparable statistical analysis on this. Actually, on the time scale investigated, the net effect of a major volcanic eruption appears to be a reduction of the prevailing increase rate of atmospheric CO2, probably an effect of ocean cooling induced from cloud effects. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

... More of those precise "scientific" terms from the alarmist camp.

So link to where you've been able to substantiate one of your assertions.