Australian Politics Forum - How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

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

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #1 - Sep 25^th, 2013 at 2:57pm

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #2 - 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

Back to top

massbal1.gif (2 KB | 57 )

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #3 - Sep 25^th, 2013 at 5:33pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:50pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #4 - 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-caus...

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #5 - Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:04pm

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-caus...

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:15pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #6 - Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:08pm

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

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-caus...

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #7 - Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:16pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:16pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 58667 Here Gender:	Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..???? Reply #8 - Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:29am How much CO2 is from manmade sources..???? Easy Question - Too much.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #9 - 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!

Back to top

cups.jpg (27 KB | 57 )

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #10 - Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am

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.)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 26^th, 2013 at 10:04am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #11 - Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm

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 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.)

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...!!!!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..???? Reply #12 - Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:59pm 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.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #13 - Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:35pm

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?

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: How much CO2 is from manmade sources..????
Reply #14 - Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:38pm

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!

Cheesy

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 Embarrassed

Sorry bra, best go back to browbeating one of your tryhard Peter Costello groupies with daddys propaganda I suppose
?????????

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged