Carbon cycle modelling and...........

[sunsettommy]

Carbon cycle modelling and

the residence time of natural and

anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:

on the construction of the

"Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.

Tom V. Segalstad

Abstract

The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.

It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.

Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior.

The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.

13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle.

IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it.

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Lot more in the link.

[shoggoth]

Pretty bad indeed.

[sunsettommy]

Yes the IPCC Dogma is indeed bad.

[shoggoth]

Yes the IPCC Dogma is indeed bad.

No this paper is bad. It would not pass peer review of any major (or even intermediate) journal.

In natural sciences the scientific method is based on the testing of hypotheses with the help of (1) empiric observations, (2) laboratory experiments, and (3) theory based on these.

-Empirical observations

-Laboratory experiments are a source of empirical observations. Neither laboratories or experiments are specifically needed.

-no "theory based on these" is needed. The hypothesis can be tested without needing to invoke a theory.

If these three parts give identical results, and the theory also is so robust that it will predict future results which will be identical to new observations and experiments, we have found a hypothesis with high significance.

-There's nothing about a theory here. It's soley about the hypothesis. If they hypothesis can be used to predict future results then it's a useful hypothesis. Seeing if it can be used to predict future results is a test of the hypothesis.

With further testing this hypothesis can be exalted to a law of nature

-It will be exalted to a scientific theory, not a law of nature. Laws are descriptions, not explainations.

Over the last years, mainly after the fall of the communism, environmentalism seems to have taken the vacant place on the political scene

Looks like the paper has just slid into a politics editorial...

Section 4 "The building of the dogma - recent atmospheric CO2 measurements" focuses on Mauna Loa, as if it is the only co2 monitoring station. It isn't. The paper fails to address any other stations, aircraft measurements, tower measurements, and the fact that they all agree with the rising trend. It also falsely claims that wet chemical measurements were more accurate than modern measurements taken by IR analysis. Common sense alone would tell you that scientists wouldn't switch from an accurate measurement system to a less accurate measurement system.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes the IPCC Dogma is indeed bad.

Hey - if you worked or got funding to contribute to the IPCC, wouldn't YOU provide evidence to support it's existence?

[sunsettommy]

Peer review passed the "Hockey Stick"!

LOLOLOLOL

Maybe you prefer all those climate models that can not be falsified or tested empirically.

I will take my chances on empirical observations and laboratory experiments.

Climate models are not an empirical construction.It is a TOOL and that is all.

We already know that CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature increase and has done so for a few 100,000 years.The 800 year lag is an inconvenient truth.This is empiric data.

The planet has been warming since the 1850's well BEFORE there was any increase of CO2 atmospheric greenhouse gas to speak of.

CO2 emissions from mankind was negligible at the time and for decades afterwards.

Empiric is a proper word and used correctly in the paper.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiric

[sunsettommy]

Yes the IPCC Dogma is indeed bad.

Hey - if you worked or got funding to contribute to the IPCC, wouldn't YOU provide evidence to support it's existence?

The IPCC was created to find evidence for manmade global warming.

So actually what you mentioned is already that way from the start.

[shoggoth]

Peer review passed the "Hockey Stick"!

And this paper is far worse than the hockey stick.

Maybe you prefer all those climate models that can not be falsified or tested empirically.

They can be tested and by extention they can be falsified

We already know that CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature increase and has done so for a few 100,000 years.The 800 year lag is an inconvenient truth.This is empiric data.

EmpiricAL data. And why would that be an inconvenient truth? The fact is that today co2 is not following temperature. It's following emissions, so past co2/temperature trends are a completely different topic than discussed in the paper. The paper is dead wrong to conclude that the recent co2 rise is not anthropogenic.

The planet has been warming since the 1850's well BEFORE there was any increase of CO2 atmospheric greenhouse gas to speak of.

Since the 1900s anyway. That's like pointing out that forest fires were occuring millions of years BEFORE arsonists even existed. What's does that prove though? That forest fires today cannot be caused by arsonists?

Same thing with the above argument. The planet has warmed and cooled naturally plenty in the past for reasons not connected to greenhouse gases, but how does that mean the planet cannot be warming via increased greenhouse gases today? It's an illogical argument.

Empiric is a proper word and used correctly in the paper.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiric

That's the noun, and was used incorrectly as an adjective in the paper. The adjective is empiricAL.

[ScottSA]

The entire post above is sophist nonsense. For instance:

"That's like pointing out that forest fires were occuring millions of years BEFORE arsonists even existed. What's does that prove though? That forest fires today cannot be caused by arsonists? Same thing with the above argument. The planet has warmed and cooled naturally plenty in the past for reasons not connected to greenhouse gases, but how does that mean the planet cannot be warming via increased greenhouse gases today? It's an illogical argument."

But how is it in any way evidence that the forest is on fire, or that an arsonist started it? In effect you're saying that arsonists exist, therefore it must be arsonists who started the fire. That's illogical.

[shoggoth]

Nope, I never made any such claim. The point made was that earth has warmed in the past, with the implication that therefore man couldn't be causing warming today.

That is analogous to pointing out that natural forest fires have occured in the past, as if that is evidence that man cannot be causing them today.

[mcqueen625]

The Liberals are calling Baird's presentation as fear mongering, yet I just finished reading an article which cited specific examples of a damaged economy in Europe. The article talks about the huge increases in gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and energy due to Europe's attempt to meet Kyoto. The article cited a once thriving company who has had to half their workforce, and those that are left are working only two or three days per week. Due to the astronomical costs being charged for electricity, even though the power companies are reporting record profits, companies have to negotiate months ahead of time for a power rate, in order to determine how many days per week they can afford to operate. It is not because they are short of orders, in fact they say the opposite is true, they have many orders waiting, but cannot afford the power to run the factory. With the Liberal is this what we are looking at, and if it is what we will be looking at, are we at least going to get a admission that they were wrong, and the economy is destroyed? I doubt it very much, because the Liberals and the NDP have their heads in the clouds and have no clue what is going on around them. Europe is the place the Liberals would like to model Canada after, and what a disaster that would be.

[ScottSA]

Europe is a disaster in the process of happening, both economically and socially.

[speaker]

The Liberals are calling Baird's presentation as fear mongering, yet I just finished reading an article which cited specific examples of a damaged economy in Europe. The article talks about the huge increases in gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and energy due to Europe's attempt to meet Kyoto. The article cited a once thriving company who has had to half their workforce, and those that are left are working only two or three days per week. Due to the astronomical costs being charged for electricity, even though the power companies are reporting record profits, companies have to negotiate months ahead of time for a power rate, in order to determine how many days per week they can afford to operate. It is not because they are short of orders, in fact they say the opposite is true, they have many orders waiting, but cannot afford the power to run the factory. With the Liberal is this what we are looking at, and if it is what we will be looking at, are we at least going to get a admission that they were wrong, and the economy is destroyed? I doubt it very much, because the Liberals and the NDP have their heads in the clouds and have no clue what is going on around them. Europe is the place the Liberals would like to model Canada after, and what a disaster that would be.

mcqueen, I'd be interested in seeing this article, can you reference it or give a site for the article? It is my understanding that fuel prices of all sorts are considerably higher in Europe than here and have been for some time. Ie. as in even before the various governments made a committment to Kyoto. Since that is the case, presumably because of supply issues and taxation, the decision to ratify and achieve the Kyoto targets may be an insignificant percentage of the problem.

There has been a lot of bs floating down the information highway about how costly it would be to meet our responsibilities. The right is always using doom and gloom and scare tactics to get people into opposing sustainability options. It isn't necessary to believe them.