tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post3881409946824174684..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 yearsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-42450696295756439632013-09-27T12:21:09.426-07:002013-09-27T12:21:09.426-07:00Again a late reply...
MS, I didn't used the w...Again a late reply...<br /><br />MS, I didn't used the words "mass balance" once in my response. I just pointed to the fact that there are two distinct decay times at work: one which is based on the residence time of an individual molecule, the other on the decay time for an excess amount of CO2 (whatever the origin) above equilibrium. These have nothing to do with each other and little with a mass balance.<br /><br />Even if all CO2 in the atmosphere was exchanged 5 times a year, thus with a residence time of a few months, effectively removing all "human fingerprints" within a year, that doesn't matter. That doesn't influence the time needed to remove an injection of extra CO2 by humans (or volcanoes, or...) into the atmosphere.<br /><br />Thus that they find only some 9% "human" CO2 in the atmosphere is right. Simply because the rest is already exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs. Still the full increase in CO2 mass (yes that word...) is attributable to the human emissions.Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-12782006407121695102013-08-29T22:36:45.357-07:002013-08-29T22:36:45.357-07:00http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revell...http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revellefaktorn-lika-viktig-klimatkansligheten/#.UiAnYtLkuE8MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-58037351048802599822013-08-29T22:36:41.890-07:002013-08-29T22:36:41.890-07:00http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revell...http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/08/30/revellefaktorn-lika-viktig-klimatkansligheten/#.UiAnYtLkuE8MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-33319900321321535392013-08-21T15:56:18.482-07:002013-08-21T15:56:18.482-07:00http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.ph...http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.phpMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-5477142909518071902013-08-14T10:50:54.725-07:002013-08-14T10:50:54.725-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388836<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1389914<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387924MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-31031448804547514192013-08-12T12:54:01.874-07:002013-08-12T12:54:01.874-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387855MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-80105304231575866762013-08-12T12:43:21.933-07:002013-08-12T12:43:21.933-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/earths-self-...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/earths-self-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide-is-remarkably-stable/#comment-1369514MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53994678836837497772013-08-12T12:40:44.797-07:002013-08-12T12:40:44.797-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387767MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19280385480247513132013-08-12T12:14:54.559-07:002013-08-12T12:14:54.559-07:00Oh help! Here we go again, the debunked mass balan...Oh help! Here we go again, the debunked mass balance argument yet again.<br /><br />How many times do I, Bart, Greg Goodman, et al have to point out to you that the mass balance equation is a single equation with two or more unknowns, unsolvable for a unique solution. Those unknowns are natural sources, natural sinks, and anthropogenic sinks [agriculture & CO2 fertilization from man-made CO2]. Only 1 of 4 variables is known with reasonable certainty in the single equation, thus proving nothing. Furthermore, each of those 3 variables are dynamic, not static, further complicating an unobtainable solution.<br /><br />How many times do we have to point out to you that this is a dynamic system, not static, and how sources and sinks change with respect to each other is not known?<br /><br />As stated by a commenter at Jo Nova:<br /><br />"My problem with Ferdinand Engelbeen is that he misses out on many factors and then blandly assumes, as you say, that the Earth was in perfect equilibrium before modern man came along.<br /><br />That is total junk science."<br /><br />I couldn't agree more.<br /><br />Readers please refer to additional commentary here:<br /><br />http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/#comment-1306635<br /><br />http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/#comment-1306680<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387621<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387247MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-7154636958466453822013-08-11T23:55:22.627-07:002013-08-11T23:55:22.627-07:00I’m not happy with this report. It seems to have m...I’m not happy with this report. It seems to have many inconsistencies or it may be just that I’m not reading it correctly.<br />I presume their symbol t(1/2) is referring to the half life usually written “(t½)” (the 1/2 should be subscript (editor won't allow it).<br />If that’s the case, their title is misleading.<br />It should be “Paper finds the half life of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years”.<br /><br />Furthermore, they state:<br />“These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm” <br />Note they are talking about “fossil fuel and biogenic CO2”. <br />But it magically turns into “anthropogenic CO2” in this statement.<br />“This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere”<br /><br />What ARE they talking about?<br /><br />I think this aspect is vitally important in knocking down the climate scam but I can’t get past this confusion. Can anyone help figure this out please?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09367826492318516982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64372003470758203662013-08-11T15:13:54.706-07:002013-08-11T15:13:54.706-07:00Oh help! Another confusion which returns every yea...Oh help! Another confusion which returns every year or so...<br /><br />The residence time of ANY CO2 molecule, whatever its origin, indeed is in average 5.3 years, before being <i>exchanged</i> by a CO2 molecule of another reservoir (vegetation, oceans). That is because some 150 GtC goes in and out of the atmosphere (currently at 800 GtC) within a year, partly over the seasons, partly permanent between the equatorial and the polar waters. That gives a residence time of 800/150 = 5.3 years.<br /><br />That doesn't change one ppmv in the atmosphere, as long as what goes into the atmosphere also goes out. The only way to get rid of some extra injection of CO2 in the atmosphere (whatever the source) is by a <i>difference</i> between inputs and outputs. That is caused by the increase of CO2 above the (temperature dictated) equilibrium. The difference nowadays is some 4 GtC/year more sink than source. The extra pressure is from 100 ppmv above equilibrium, that is 212 GtC. That gives an e-fold decay rate of the extra CO2 of 212/4 = 53 years or a half life time of ~40 years.<br /><br />Far longer than the 5.3 residence time, but much faster than the centuries of the IPCC... Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.com