Biochemistry professor explains why man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere only 14 years

Biochemistry professor Dr. Gösta Pettersson updates his prior posts on why the lifetime of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 14 years, not hundreds to thousands as claimed by the IPCC and the IPCC's Bern Model.

Google translation + light editing from the Swedish site Stockholm's Initiative:

The informational bomb curve 

12/06/2013 by Pehr Björnbom .

Here is a guest post by biochemistry Professor Dr. Gösta Pettersson with new results that provide answers to criticism performed in a couple of blog posts by Professor Mats Almgren. Gösta Pettersson shows that his simple temperature-dependent box model can explain both the bomb curve and the Keeling Curve including El Niño fluctuations. In addition to the weaknesses of Mats Almgren criticism Gösta Pettersson takes up here, I brought up other weaknesses in an earlier blog post .

The informational bomb curve

Gösta Pettersson

The above-ground nuclear weapons tests during the Cold War are approximately doubled atmospheric levels of C14 emissions. After the 1963 test ban treaty, most of this excess of 14C-carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. That this is the case has been coated by measurements of the so-called ΔC14 values, whose temporal changes constitute what I described as bomb test curve.

Professor Mats Almgren has indicated that ΔC14 at current definition is not proportional to changes in the amount of C14, but related to the latter ( n14 ) according to the relationship

n14/n14s = (ΔC14 +1) n12/n12s Eqn. (1)

where n12 represents the amount of C12 and the index s indicates the values ​​of the variables in a standard year (1950) prior to nuclear tests. In my last guest post corrected and I packed me for Almgren's instructions and featured a character with an accurate translation of ΔC14 to n14 . It is reproduced in slightly modified form in Figure 1 below, which shows how the amount of C14 in the atmosphere declined after September 1963, ΔC14 values ​​measured at the North Cape and in Central Europe. I embrace the Almgren and others abbreviation of "bomb test curve" to "bomb curve", but let those words stand for black data in Fig.1, the ones that show how the amount of airborne C14-carbon dioxide dropped after the CTBT.

Following the agreement reached concerning the translation of ΔC14 to n14 has Almgren gave his views on what the bomb curve says about the carbon cycle. He argues that it requires very specific conditions to the disappearance of a pulse of carbon dioxide shall comply the bomb curve course, there were plenty of C14 in the system even before the bomb tests, there is evidence that air is added to the C14, both before and after the bomb tests, and to Such C14-supply suggested to be due to isotope effects in carbon dioxide exchange.

These circumstances lead to the conclusion Almgren to bomb curve is not at all reflect the disappearance of a pulse of carbon dioxide and therefore can not be used for falsification of eg. [the IPCC's] Bern model. I want to designate as a completely wrong conclusion . Almgrens words "not at all reflect" probably has a different meaning than what I deduce from them and is a trifle in the context. But just in case it should be noted that the bomb curve is obviously highly influenced by (and in this sense reflects) the disappearance of the excess pulse of 14C-carbon dioxide bomb tests gave rise to. Since the C14 carbon is carbon dioxide gives bomb curve thus information about the disappearance of a pulse of carbon dioxide. This information can obviously be used to test the validity of the presented CO2 model.

The Bern model has been constructed and calibrated based on the premise that only anthropogenic emissions contributed to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration under Keeling Curve. Blue curve in Figure 1 shows the graph of the model's "impulse response function", ie. the relaxation function that specifies under which the time course a pulse rate of carbon dioxide excess on the model is removed from the atmosphere. The model considers all carbon isotopes as kinetically identical, why blue curve also indicates the model regulations relating to the relaxation process of an excess pulse of C14 emissions.

Therefore, the results in Figure 1 are clearly evidence that the Bern model is falsified by the bomb curve . The 1963 surplus of C14 CO2 disappeared significantly faster than the Bern model prescribes. None of the of Almgren foregoing circumstances may change the situation. Have the air added to the C14 after the bomb test pulse, so this addition is included in the bomb curve and not the later one iota closer to the blue model curve in Figure 1. Conversely, the discrepancy between the blue curve and the part of the bomb curve corresponding to the relaxation of bomb test pulse. Furthermore, the experimental ΔC14 values ​​measured with high accuracy and corrected for Suess effect on the basis of well known data for n12/n12s-kvoten. This means that the discrepancy between the observations and blue curve in Figure 1 is not significant and represents any random variation.

Because the excess of C14-carbon disappeared as quickly as bomb curve shows can also be concluded that anthropogenic emissions can not be the only noteworthy reason that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased (it would require that the relaxation process is so slow that Bern model prescribes). The basic premise of the Bern model's construction is destroyed then the bomb curve. The designers failed to take into account all factors of significance for carbon dioxide exchange. Moreover, it has been over-emphasized factors that appear to be of minor importance; bomb curve shows no tendency to the marked flerfasighet characterizing Bern model blue curve and Almgren ascribe the transition from rapid exchange with surface water to slower exchange with the deep ocean.

Is there any better explanation for bomb curve appearance? My answer is yes, based on analyzes of the same basic concept as the 1950s climatological pioneers started from when the shortage of computers did not have the opportunity to review details but focused on the main features: The kinetics of atmospheric excess CO2 elimination must be mainly determined by the exchange with the hydrosphere which constitute the dominant sink. In Paper 3 , I have shown that a simple air / ocean model adequately describes both Keeling curve term trend as the temperature dependence of the El Niño fluctuations. Red curve in Figure 2 shows what this simple model (hereafter referred to as "my model") prescribes concerning relaxation of bomb tests excess of atmospheric C14 emissions.

My model provides an acceptable description of the elimination of the first half of the 1963 surplus of C14, but stipulates that the amount of C14 in 2004 should have ended 16% higher than the 1950 year standard value rather than the 27% higher as bomb curve indicates. Either model shows about 10% error at the end of the curve, or the amount of C14 in the atmosphere increased about 10% by supplements that are not directly related to the bomb test pulse.

Crucial support for the latter option gives the inventory of bomb-C14 as kolcykelforskare at Heidelberg University conducted on the basis of the large number of ΔC14-series using an advanced model that includes the biosphere and divide the atmosphere into 22 zones ( Naegler et al. ) . was found among other things that the amount of C14 in the air during the period 1964-2005 at length increased by 8% of the total amount bomb tests prior to complete.This was explained as an effect of industrial emissions of C14 (and should also include any C14 contribution from nuclear weapons testing by Test Ban Treaty).

Same industrial C14 supplements must then be assumed to contribute to bomb the curve, ie.should be subtracted from bombkurvans readings to give a picture of how the relaxation of the actual bomb test pulse progressed. Figure 3 shows that such correction of the bomb curve virtually eliminate the previous discrepancy (highlighted green zone in Figure 2) against my model.Remaining differences are so small that they should fall within the limits of error for the data measurement points and model calculations are based on.

Of Naegler et al.'s Results also show that the hydrosphere and biosphere in 2005 together made up 84% of the 1964 surplus of atmospheric C14. This means that the relaxation of the excess proceeded at such a pace that only 16% of it may have been left in the air in 2005. Measured on the uptake of C14-surplus thus has this disappeared from the air in excellent conformity with the final value 1.16 for the red curve in Figure 2-3.

The gist of all this is that bomb curve gives fully reliable and extractable information about the disposal of the atmospheric C14 surplus bomb tests gave rise to. My model provides a good description of the relaxation process, and is consistent with what Heidelbergforskarna concluded with far more advanced models, and based on a far more extensive observational material. In both cases, the analyses clearly show that 80% of the bomb test pulse transmitted from the air to the outdoors in general within less than 30 years, in stark contrast to the IPCC's assertion that it takes several centuries to dispose of 80% of the excess pulse of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Whether bomb curve or Heidelbergforskarnas C14 inventories in 2006 [ Naegler et al. ] or 2010 [Levin et al. ] not support the Bern model's instruction to approximately 40% of the bomb test pulse is still present in the air.

The corrected bomb curve in Figure 3 is monophasic, although not strictly exponential. It is described so well by my model that I certainly can stand by my previous conclusion that the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide excess is overwhelmingly controlled by the air's carbon dioxide content in accordance with the law of mass action (the basis for the model's kinetic differential equations) and the residence time of 14 years. There is absolutely no indication that the slow processes in the oceans have a significant effect on the relaxation process, in any case, no effects of the kind the IPCC Bern model prescribes.

Will this that my model provides a simple explanation for the amount of airborne C14-carbon dioxide rose slightly even before the nuclear test. The period 1850-1950 was characterized by global warming, and heating provides thermal degassing. If one assumes the IPCC's assumption that the carbon cycle was in equilibrium in pre-industrial times (before 1850), so provide my model that the amount of C14 in the air then it should have been 5% lower than the standard year 1950.Because global warming has progressed in the second half of the 1900s, one can expect that the amount of C14 in the air would have continued to increase, although there have been no nuclear weapons tests. Green curve in Figure 3 shows how the increase would have looked like in my model.

So the rising C14 amounts before the bomb tests are best explained as a temperature effect of equilibrium positions, the same effect as under Paper 3 contributed to about half of the observed increase in atmospheric total carbon dioxide levels during the industrial period. That bomb curve for such reasons, in my model should tend towards n14/n14s-värden significantly higher than 1 has been pointed out by Pehr Björnbom with multiple and illuminated by the red curve in Figure 3.

Blue curve in Figure 3 indicates my model regulation on how the equilibrium position of the air C14 amount varied after 1960, ie. shows the temperature dependence of the final value that relaxation of C14-surplus pursued. Bomb The curve was in 2004 very close to this year's equilibrium value.My previous conclusion that the bomb curve gives an observed image of more than 95% of the relaxation process is itself therefore remains. To the extent that the elimination of atmospheric carbon dioxide excess is controlled by the process with relaxation times on the order of hundreds or thousands of years, then such slow processes only expected to affect the removal of the last few percent of example. emissions of fossil carbon dioxide.

Almgren has termed bomb curve as a lingering myth . I hope the bomb curve remains tenacious in debate, for it is definitely not a myth. Instead, it represents one of several basic observations provide evidence that the Bern model is inconsistent with the present experimental results concerning the disposal of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. This has been pointed out by many authors before me and is fully in line with the position taken NIPCC.

The IPCC continues to cling to his preconceived notions that anthropogenic emissions of fossil carbon dioxide is the dominant cause of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase. Therefore, one is forced to continue to ignore the bomb curve and many studies showing that carbon dioxide retention is in the order of 10 years rather than 100 years, evidence unchanged from the strong temperature effects on the Keeling curve produced by El Niño fluctuations. This ignorance (which leads to neglect of thermal degassing) is, according to the argument in Paper 3 reason why the IPCC arrives at a CO2 budget where about one third of the anthropogenic carbon emissions disappeared without a trace to an unidentified "missing sink"; they renamed it to "residual terrestrial sink".

My model does not ignore the above-mentioned observations, but relies on them and explains them with strict kinetic link that leads to a balanced CO2 budget. The bomb curve still represents one of the strongest evidence that the IPCC provides a grossly exaggerated picture of how long the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will remain in the air. Many of the arguments I stated in my earliest posts were misguided because they were related to an incorrect translation of ΔC14values. Yet had the fundamental conclusions I then drew much stronger support of the experimental data than the kolcykelbild IPCC paints. After the correct translation of the C14 values ​​according to Almgren's instructions conclusions can now be drawn on the basis of entirely sound data and arguments.

Related posts:

1. Carbon models are revised from square one by Gösta Pettersson
2. More about the carbon cycle and bomb curve
3. Bomb curve again: Model and observations do not match
4. A gem from Gosta
5. Bomb curve again

Analysis finds man-made CO2 emissions only remain in atmosphere for ~5 years, not thousands

The IPCC claims man-made CO2 emissions [only 4% of total CO2 emissions] remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, as opposed to the 96% of CO2 emissions from nature which have a lifetime of only about 5 years. Climate scientist Pehr Björnbom, author of a published paper finding low CO2 climate sensitivity, has a new post today on the fallacy that man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. Dr. Bjornbom reviews the findings of Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, and author of the book 'False Alarm.' Dr. Pettersson finds the computer model ["The Bern Model'] used by the IPCC to predict CO2 lifetimes of over 100 years is highly flawed and is strongly contradicted by observations from both atomic bomb testing and atmospheric levels of CO2 [the Keeling Curve]. 

Reblogged from "The Climate Scam" (Netherlands, Google translation):

Climate simulations and observations are contrary to each other: Bomb Test Curve

17/05/2013 by Pehr Björnbom .

46 Comments

Picture: Trial blast at Bikini Atoll in 1954, from Wikipedia .

Gösta Pettersson points out that bomb test curve is not consistent with climate models, mainly the so-called Bern model. Here I compare the simulations with the Bern model published by Solomon et al (2009) with bomb test curve. It is clear that theory and observations are strongly in conflict.

Gösta Pettersson, who is professor emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, in his book False Alarm (see references below) and in a guest post at TCS brought the issue of bomb test curve, namely the curve of the reduction of the presence of measurable radioactive carbon dioxide from nuclear bomb tests in atmosphere. I believe that Gösta Pettersson's book is a very valuable popular science topics in climate change. It gives a skeptical, thoughtful and coherent story about climate science. One of the most central parts of the book is the story of the bomb test curve.

It is generally accepted in the climate science of the very long term, then human (anthropogenic) emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the ocean and biosphere was close to 100% because the kolreservoaren in the sea is about 60 times larger than kolreservoaren the atmosphere.The big question is not whether this will happen, but how fast it goes. This is where the bomb test curve comes into play.

Read more in False Alarm 7.6 Carbon Occupy Gets equilibria

Bomb Test curve shows how the levels of radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide has varied over time.What has happened is that the atmospheric nuclear tests, as at Bikini Atoll as seen in the picture, generated large amounts of radioactive C14 emissions. As long as these atmospheric bomb test went so step therefore the content of this through its radioactivity directly measurable carbon drastically over the natural level (due to the formation of C14 due to cosmic rays). But finally came the great powers agreed to stop the atmospheric bomb tests, and so ceased thus these issues. In Figure 1 we see bomb test curve in the upper diagram, which is Figure 31 in the False Alarms, and a comparison of the bomb test curve and Bern model in the bottom, which is Figure 34 in False alaram.

Solomon et al (2009) have used the Bern model simulations of how carbon dioxide levels will evolve under different assumptions about the issues. They have assumed that emissions first increase roughly at the same accelerated rate as today that at a certain carbon concentration suddenly cease.In Figure 2, we see a couple of charts from their article.

In the upper diagram in Figure 2, which is part of Figure 1 in Solomon and others, have been simulated the carbon dioxide content in the air will increase if emissions increase logarithmically with 2% per year to a certain peak value, several different cases, whereupon emissions ceases. The curves after the peak value, which thus assumes that emissions have ceased, are analogous to bomb test curve.

In the lower graph, which is Figure S2 in Solomon and others, announces title that shows decay (U.S. falloff) of the human contribution to atmospheric concentrations (CO2 curves are represented by a gray cone) after the anthropogenic emissions ceased. This description matches exactly with bomb test curve that just shows the decay of the human contribution to C14 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after emissions stopped by the prohibition of nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

In the lower graph in Figure 2 has avklingningsförloppen illustrated with the same sort of scale on the y-axis (0-1 or percentage) of the bomb test curve after the introduction into the atmosphere has ceased, not only carbon dioxide, but to several different topics. The carbon avklingningsförlopp varies according Bern model is dependent on the added amount and therefore illustrated as an ostrich.

These curves according to Solomon and others would thus equally be simulations with Bern model of the C14 carbon dioxide from the bomb sample decays in the atmosphere. To those of Solomon and others called simulations of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, decay (U.S. falloff) in the atmosphere makes no difference (although the radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide from bomb tests, incidentally anthropogenic). It is truly remarkable, then, therefore, that the simulated curves of Bern model differs so sharply against the observed bomb test curve as illustrated in Figure 1, lower graph, Figure 34 from Gösta Pettersson's book False Alarm.

Decay curves can be interpreted with the IPCC's view of the carbon cycle, Figure 3 from IPCC 2007 .

We have a faster decay in the beginning of the Bern model curve. The faster part can be interpreted as the anthropogenic (according Solomons terminology) carbon dioxide is rapidly coming to close to equilibrium only between atmosphere and ocean surface layer, and then somewhat less rapidly between the three reservoirs atmosphere, the ocean's surface and the biosphere on land. The slow continuation corresponds to anthropogenic molecules slowly leaking from ythavet to deep sea and it is this that is the very slow progress in Bern model that enables a portion of the carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for more than a thousand years.

The most notable is that the decay curve of the observations, ie. bomb test curve in the lower graph in Figure 2, no way supports such an interpretation. The observations of bomb test curve says avklingningsförloppet much faster towards a complete removal of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This means that the Bern model and the theory of the so-called Revelle effect limiting slope is not consistent with the observations. This effect was launched by Revelle and Suess (1957).They also based their studies on the effects of anthropogenic carbon in the C14 released from the atmosphere to the ocean, but not on bombprovsskurvan because it did not exist yet.

According to the Revelle effect so can the sea for a long time to admit only about one tenth of its share of the excess carbon dioxide in the final balance due to the peculiarities of chemical equilibria present in the carbon dioxide-carbonate-water system. But there are as bomb test curve no indication whatsoever that this Revelle effect work the way the theory says. In fact, according Revelle effect at least 10 - 20% of the emissions remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. What this disagreement between simulations and observations is due is another thing I can not give a good answer to (a guess, is the theory of deterministic to describe what happens in a complex and chaotic system), but we must face the fact, observations and theory contrary to each other in this case.

Keeling curve for koldioxidhaltens development conforms nor indeed the Solomons with several participants simulations. In the upper diagram in Figure 2 rises from Bern model simulated carbon concentration at an accelerating pace when emissions increase as they have done in reality and which is what the simulations assume. However, as shown in Figure 4, from Wood for Trees , then carbon dioxide levels increased linearly over the last twenty years.

The discussion here about the role of carbon dioxide can be seen in a wider context of the IPCC's view of how much anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions means the climate has been challenged by professors Murry Salby and Ole Humlum. I have read a textbook on atmospheric physics at the graduate level by Murry Salby and has gained a trust in his abilities so his challenge of the IPCC's approach is nothing that I can easily dismiss.

Read more: Is the IPCC argument for carbon dioxide increase is due to human sustainable?

Finally, we note that the theory Solomons with several participants simulations based on strong conflict with the observations of bomb test curve. But neither Keeling curve consistent with their simulations. These are two of several other examples of where climate science has difficulty in theoretical simulations that go together with the observations. These are important warning signs that you have to use findings from climate science theory with great caution. Gösta Pettersson has even written the following in the preface to his book, False Alarm, where he makes a clear statement:

The book's title was initially fitted with a question mark. It stressed when I along the way became convinced that the current state of scientific knowledge does not give any reason for concern that our emissions of greenhouse gases are being induce catastrophic climate change. One should not cry "wolf" whenever you see a four-legged animal.

References

Susan Solomon, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti, and Pierre Fried Ling Stein, 2009: "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions" . PNAS 106: 1704-1709. http://www.pnas.org cgi.doi10.1073pnas.0812721106.

Gösta Pettersson, 2013. False Alarm , published on the Web.

Revelle R, Suess HE, 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an Increase of atmospheric CO2 During the past decades. Tellus 9:18-27.

CO2 Lifetime: Which do you believe- Models or Data?

The IPCC loves theoretical computer models, even when said models have not been experimentally verified or actually contradict experimental data. However, as Richard Feynman, PhD, Nobel Laureate in Physics, famously said "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong". As shown in a prior post, the IPCC AR4 states that the models at the heart of the confidence level of at least 90% that man is responsible for global warming have not been tested against observational data and furthermore the necessary tests to evaluate the models have yet to be developed. In addition, observational satellite data has since shown uniformly that the models fail miserably. Let that not be an impedance to the settled consensus, however. 

An analogous situation is also true of the second most important foundation of the AGW hypothesis, whereby the estimates of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere are based upon entirely theoretical unvalidated computer models which estimate CO2 lifetimes in the atmosphere of hundreds to thousands of years in stark contrast to scores of observational measurements which show an average maximum lifetime of about 5 years:

Red line is IPCC computer model estimate (should actually be multiple hundreds of years)

Biochemistry professor explains why the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 14 years

Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, further explains why the computer model ["The Bern Model'] used by the IPCC to predict CO2 lifetimes of over 100 years is highly flawed and is strongly contradicted by observations from both atomic bomb testing and atmospheric levels of CO2 [the Keeling Curve]. 

Dr. Pettersson finds "the IPCC extremely (about tenfold) underestimated both the speed of the final location for the natural disposal of atmospheric carbon dioxide" by natural sinks. The assumption of the "IPCC Bern model that 22% of atmospheric carbon dioxide surplus can never be removed from the air seems quite amateurish considering that the present empirical observations (Fig. 1) confirms that at least 95% of the bomb test excess of 14C-carbon dioxide has been removed "already" after 50 years." 

"Paper 2 shows the bomb curve estimated value of the CO2 relaxation time (14 years) and concludes that the IPCC-backed climate models overestimate future anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by a factor of 3-15 depending on the emissions scenario and the considered time period. This means that emissions of fossil carbon dioxide can not be expected to lead to a politically unacceptable global warming (two degree target), even according to the IPCC's worst case discharge scenarios, the longest present experimentally determined estimate of the relaxation time, and the alarmist climate models' own estimates of the greenhouse effect strength."

"The IPCC has been scientifically untenable reasons turned a blind eye to the present very extensive and entirely consistent experimental results concerning CO2 relaxation and preferred to base their assessments on a mathematical model that lacks empirical support, and even contrary to the observations made."

Bomb Test curve - nature's simple answers to complex relationships

31/08/2013  156 Comments  Guest Post by Gösta Pettersson  [Google translation from Swedish + light editing]

Figure 1.   Time course (black data points) for the relaxation of the excess of 14C-carbon dioxide as the above-ground nuclear tests showed, indicating a much shorter atmospheric lifetime of CO2 than assumed by the IPCC [blue line of the Bern Model].

Peter Stilbs and Pehr Björnbom have in TCS messages noticed my book False alarm and my conclusion that bomb test curve (figure above) falsifies the underpinning for climate models projections of future carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. The inserts gave rise to a rather intense debate. Many commentators stressed the complexity of the carbon cycle, and hinted that I underestimated this by basing my conclusion solely on bomb test curve. "There's more to it" was one comment. "Gösta makes it too easy for themselves," was another.

I can understand the doubt. Kolcykelproblematiken a whole is very complex. Hydrosphere uptake of carbon dioxide is dependent on wind, temperature, rainfall, etc. according to little-understood relationship (eg. Revelle effect). The spread of the absorbed carbon dioxide from the surface waters to deeper water layers can be made according to several different mechanisms and span time scales from the second level to centuries. The yield of carbon dioxide between the air and the biosphere is likewise by a variety of processes of widely different time scales. Are you interested in what happens to the carbon value after it has been transferred from the air to the outdoors in general, then you can be served by kolcykelmodeller who, like Bern model looking observe and describe the effects of the present heterogeneities and other mechanistic complications in the total carbon dioxide exchange .

The situation is completely different if you have the limited objective of ascertaining the extent to which anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (and hence an increase in the greenhouse effect). Then you only need to know the kinetics of an atmospheric CO2 relaxation (equilibration), ie. knowing how quickly and to what extent an excess of carbon dioxide removed from the air. Bomb Test curve provides just such information to more than 95% of the relaxation of the excess pulse of 14C-labeled carbon dioxide as the above-ground nuclear tests resulted. The graph shows the net result of the disparate events that helped to remove the anthropogenic input excess C14 emissions by transferring it from the air to the outdoors in general. The curve represents the empirically determined response that nature has given us the carbon cycle all complex relationships.

C14 carbon is carbon dioxide. The relaxation processes which reduced the excess air of C14 emissions are identical to those that continuously reduces such excess carbon dioxide as the atmosphere is supplied by human activities such as the use of fossil fuels, land use change and cement production. Because of the kinetic kolisotopeffekternas small size can be also as a good approximation to assume that C14 carbon disposed with the same speed and in the same degree as carbon dioxide with different isotope composition.

These simple facts provide bomb test curve an outstanding informative weight. It tells us that the air at the end of X should contain about 91% of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the year X-1, approximately 85% of emissions in the year X-2, and so on back in time. Based on available historical data for the amount of emissions since the industrial revolution, one can on the basis of the appearance of the bomb curve calculate how much human activities contributed to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration up to an arbitrary subsequent years. Likewise, the curve us exactly the information we need to analogously calculate the likely future emissions of fossil carbon dioxide will contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide future.

So what these climatological fundamental calculations is concerned, it is not me who makes it too easy for me, but others that make it too difficult for them. One does not know why the bomb test curve looks the way it does. Suffice it to say how it looks and to base their calculations on this look. One need not resort to models that consider what happens to the carbon dioxide after it entered into the biosphere and hydrosphere. It is a mathematical model that provides an acceptable description of the bomb test curve, nature's answer to the critical question of how quickly and to what extent the excess carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.

And in that respect, it is clear from Figure 1 that the [IPCC] Bern model triphasic description of curve (blue graph) is substandard and unfit for the calculation. Statistical regression analysis shows that bomb test curve is best described as enfasiskt exponential (red graph), with a relaxation time in many consistent experimental studies found to be in the order of ten years rather than the hundred years that the IPCC states on the basis of the Bern model. The bomb curve appearance gives us ample information to enable us to conclude that the IPCC extremely severely (about tenfold) underestimated both the speed of the final location for the natural disposal of atmospheric carbon dioxide excess.

Why bomb test curve looks like it does is another question of mechanistic nature.The answer may, however, also a fair indication of the kinetic analysis of the curve. The IPCC states that the relaxation of atmospheric carbon dioxide excess is highly controlled by carbon dioxide slow transport from the ocean surface to the deep sea. I have commented on this by saying that I only need to glance at the bomb test curve to realize that the IPCC's claim is incorrect.

It is needed is not more than a glance to see that bomb test curve goes towards a final value which is close to zero and certainly less than 0:05. The information is all I need to be able to classify the kinetics disposal of excess air of carbon dioxide as a virtually irreversible process. Thus, the process must essentially have the same kinetic behavior as a completely irreversible process, ie. be more than 95% controlled by the air concentration of carbon dioxide according to law of mass action. There is not even a theoretical possibility that the slow processes in the ocean can influence more than, at most, 5% of the relaxation process.

This insight is likely only to specialists with good knowledge of the relaxation kinetics theory and practice. But for non-specialists, there is an easy alternative way to arrive at the same conclusion, since bomb test curve is found to follow an exponential progression.

Exponential decay of an excess concentration may be namely for purely mathematical reasons, then, and only then, the corresponding reaction rate is proportional to the concentration variable in question. The observation that bomb test excess of 14C-carbon dioxide removal in an exponential progression tells us, then, that the removal occurred at a speed which was proportional to the air concentration of the C14-labeled carbon dioxide. The observed part (95%) of the relaxation process has therefore been guided by the air content of C14-carbon dioxide, in accordance with the law of mass action applied to a completely irreversible process. Slow processes in the ocean can at most affect the removal of the remaining 5% of the excess carbon dioxide, ie. the final stage of the relaxation process that we have not yet had the opportunity to observe.

The conclusion that airborne carbon surplus raised virtually irreversible by natural sinks, one might also benefit from the IPCC, the data presented for the equilibrium distribution of carbon between the atmosphere (1.5%), and nature in general (98.5%). Bomb Sample curve only confirms that nature behaves as it theoretically might expect in such a case. In addition to consolidating the Uppsjön of published experimental measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide retention (which invariably fall within the range 2-14 years) in principle is fully acceptable as estimates of carbon dioxide relaxation. IPCC lacks any any theoretical justification for its idiot explanation of climatic pioneers Bolin, Revelle, Suess et al. the ground that they measured the wrong kind of retention, one that is not relevant to the relaxation of excess carbon dioxide.

A scientific presentation of my kinetic analysis of the bomb test curve can be found in Paper 1 on the English-language website False alarm . There is also the scientific arguments showing that Bern model is in conflict with the present empirical data. From a theoretical aspect, Bern model grossest error prescribing the equilibrium distribution of carbon between air and nature in general is 22%: 78% ie. that the model makes natural uptake of carbon dioxide around 15 times reversiblare than what we know it is under the IPCC kolcykeldata.

Bern model's designers actually suggest that preindustrial atmospheric equilibrium concentration of carbon dioxide was about 5000 ppm, but apparently lack sufficient kinetic skills to realize that their model has this absurd consequence. Neither have the skills enough to realize that the reaction system equilibrium constants are fixed by the thermodynamic relations and not with a custom size in the construction of a kinetic model. Bern model of the IPCC accepted and utilized instruction to 22% of atmospheric carbon dioxide surplus can never be removed from the air seems quite amateurish considering that the present empirical observations (Fig. 1) confirms that at least 95% of the bomb test excess of 14C-carbon dioxide has been removed "already" after 50 years.

Paper 2 on the above website shows that in order it from the bomb cvurve estimated value of the relaxation time (14 years) concludes that the IPCC-backed climate models overestimate future anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by a factor of 3-15 depending on the emissions scenario and the considered time period. This means that emissions of fossil carbon dioxide can not be expected to lead to a politically unacceptable global warming (two degree target), even according to the IPCC's worst case discharge scenarios, the longest present experimentally determined estimate of the relaxation time, and the alarmist climate models' own estimates of the greenhouse effect strength.

The IPCC has been scientifically untenable reasons turned a blind eye to the present very extensive and entirely consistent experimental results concerning CO2 relaxation and preferred to base their assessments on a mathematical model that lacks empirical support, and even contrary to the observations made. How can that be? My own answer to this question, I came to when I found that the corresponding section in the IPCC reports had Bern model two constructors as head writer (Siegenthaler in the first report and Joos in the subsequent three reports). The probability should be zero to those IPCC experts would realize his model shortcomings and persuade annul it. Something I with different slant cover in Chapter 15:5 - 6) of my book False alarm.

Other related posts