Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy
The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). 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, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
Related: New paper finds ocean along Baja California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere
H/T to The Stockholm Initiative site for finding this abstract [Google translation from Swedish]:
David Coe - another kolcykelkritiker
This summer, there have been numerous posts and lively discussion of the carbon cycle.Earlier critics: Jaworowski, Beck, Sail City, Humlum and Kouwenberg have questioned the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and its variation before Manua Loa measurements began in the 1950s. A brief description of this on science page ( link)
Last summer was extended discussion in that Gösta Pettersson book "False Alarm" was published. Among other Pehr wrote a post about this in May ( link ). There is now a question of a much broader criticism of the IPCC's carbon cycle is quantitatively incorrect. An appropriate introduction to this newer criticism is to consider this chart.
The lower blue bars show the atmospheric CO 2 -upptag/år ago Manua Loa measurements started. The red-tagged curve is CO 2 -tillförseln/år measured in Gtons carbon. The difference between these rather precise curves must represent the other CO 2 uptake, ie, in the oceans and the biosphere, ie the green field. On the x-axis has ENSO outbreak, ie emerging warm ocean currents, marked with black arrows. It is obvious that the strong variations in atmospheric absorption - high blue bars - correlates strongly with these ENSO outbreak. There is, however, no correlation with the fossil injections.
I highly recommend anyone interested to read chapter 7-9 in the book that is freely available ( link ). Gösta Pettersson shows that AGW supporters provided that increasing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere solely due to the anthropogenic addition, and this causes errors in the results. It has used the Bern model with three widely different decay times for the natural processes that regulate the addition of CO 2 . Since the longest time parameter is more than a hundred years, so the forecasts landed in the often-quoted long lifetimes of carbon dioxide at 100 and even 500 years. Pettersson describes how this differs from the results that the decay of the 14 C isotope after 50's nuclear tests have shown."Bomb curve" decays much faster, and with only one decay time. The difference between Berne and Bomb curve led here for a detailed discussion, and it became almost an overdose of red and white beads. I do not think a consensus was reached, which iofs is very rare on this forum. However shows Göstas making very convincing that the IPCC's carbon cycle has serious quantitative problem, which in turn is disastrous for the validity of the "scenarios" which is based on a strongly increasing CO 2 content in the future.
Discussion of Göstas preparation was replaced in turn by some messages by Pehrson about Salby and his differential equation for the relationship between the CO 2 -content and temperature. The relationship between Göstas and Salbys criticism he is the right person to explain, so I will instead conclude by mentioning another kolcykelkritiker: David Coe . He observations are collected in four manuscripts of which so far published two at Andrew Montfords blog Bishop Hill ( link ). David deals with the two most recent IPCC reports are making when it comes to the carbon cycle and what is controlled atmospheric levels of CO 2 .Like other critics, he finds inconsistencies which shows that there are major flaws in the IPCC's theory that carbon dioxide is only determined by the anthropogenic contribution. I would have quoted one or two of his figures, but have not managed to copy them. Coe discusses include the concentration measurements of the stable 13 C isotope made. The usual description has been confirm that anthropogenic origin. Coe shows that this pioneer Keeling's 13 δ measurements indicated that there were problems with the evidence. Some time ago I referred Leporis conference paper on a new detailed analysis ( link ) which clearly showed that 13 δ values rather showed that the CO 2 -increase was not predominantly derived from humans. Neither Coe, Salbys or Leporis works have been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Experience shows that this may be because they either have no weakness that I did not realize. Or it may also be because they are so accurate that they represent a serious blow to climate science theses why the elite of tidkriftsredaktörer not want or dare to publish them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment