From the “fun with conjecture department”, another graduate school paper parroting the claim from NOAA’s Susan Solomon that excess man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
From CO2science: 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 CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.
It seems to me that Gaia does a fine job of respirating CO2. It doesn’t just “sit there”, as you can see the process is quite dynamic:
More at NOAA ESRL Carbon Tracker
Via Eurekalert: If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer
While governments debate about potential policies that might curb the emission of greenhouse gases, new University of Washington research shows that the world is already committed to a warmer climate because of emissions that have occurred up to now.
There would continue to be warming even if the most stringent policy proposals were adopted, because there still would be some emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. But the new research shows that even if all emissions were stopped now, temperatures would remain higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels because the greenhouse gases already emitted are likely to persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
In fact, it is possible temperatures would continue to escalate even if all cars, heating and cooling systems and other sources of greenhouse gases were suddenly eliminated, said Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics. That’s because tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols, which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on.
“The aerosols would wash out quickly and then we would see an abrupt rise in temperatures over several decades,” he said.
Armour is the lead author of a paper documenting the research, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. His co-author is Gerard Roe, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences.
The global temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution, which began around the start of the 19th century. The scientists’ calculations took into account the observed warming, as well as the known levels of greenhouse gases and aerosols already emitted to see what might happen if all emissions associated with industrialization suddenly stopped.
In the best-case scenario, the global temperature would actually decline, but it would remain about a half-degree F higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels and probably would not drop to those levels again, Armour said.
There also is a possibility temperatures would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution, a threshold at which climate scientists say significant climate-related damage begins to occur.
Of course it is not realistic to expect all emissions to cease suddenly, and Armour notes that the overall effect of aerosols – particles of sea salt or soot from burning fossil fuels, for example – is perhaps the largest uncertainty in climate research.
But uncertainties do not lessen the importance of the findings, he said. The scientists are confident, from the results of equations they used, that some warming would have to occur even if all emissions stopped now. But there are more uncertainties, and thus a lower confidence level, associated with larger temperature increases.
Climate models used in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments take into consideration a much narrower range of the possible aerosol effects, or “forcings,” than are supported by actual climate observations, Armour said. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel, sponsored by the United Nations, makes periodic assessments of climate change and is in the process of compiling its next report.
As emissions of greenhouse gases continue, the “climate commitment” to a warmer planet only goes up, Armour said. He believes it is helpful for policy makers to understand that level of commitment. It also will be helpful for them to understand that, while some warming is assured, uncertainties in current climate observations – such as the full effect of aerosols – mean the warming could be greater than models suggest.
“This is not an argument to say we should keep emitting aerosols,” he said. “It is an argument that we should be smart in how we stop emitting. And it’s a call to action because we know the warming we are committed to from what we have emitted already and the longer we keep emitting the worse it gets.”
The paper was published in the Jan. 15 edition of Geophysical Research Letters.
Feet2theFire says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:41 am
I agree that the paywall access to any publication older than a year should be set free. I have paid hundreds of dollars for old articles and even have subscribed to Science, because of their extreme paywall access ($ 30 per article!)…
Furnas is one of the few volcanoes where clear 13C enrichment in plants due to endogenous degassing has been evidenced.
On its face, this in the abstract completely falsifies the statement you make that “the d13C level of almost all volcanic vents is much higher…” The full text may support your assertion, but I can’t get to the whole.
I think that you misinterpreted that part of the abstract (I haven’t bought the rest of the article either). I suppose that the plants involved did receive enough d13C enriched CO2 to be measurable in the plant’s carbon, while in other cases the differences were too small. Fact is that most volcanic vents have d13C levels between -8 and + 8 per mil d13C, depending of the source of the magma. Deep core magma (Iceland) is lower in d13C, while subduction magma (Indonesia) recycles carbonates from sea floor deposits which are higher in d13C. Here some more references:
http://epswww.unm.edu/facstaff/zsharp/homepage/hompage-v6_website/files/Download/fischeroldoinyo.pdf
-2 to -4 per mil (down right of the first page)
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0128-122010/c6.pdf
The carbon isotope signature of magmatic CO2 varies, but is usually quite different from the current d13C value of atmospheric CO2 (about -7.9‰). Most magmatically derived CO2 is much heavier (more depleted in 13C) in signature (Table 6.2), with a typical value of about -4.5‰, but the exact signature is dependent on the magma source. Mount Rainier, like the other Washington volcano Mt. St. Helens, deviates from the general picture with lighter d13C values (-11.1 to -12.4‰) in its magmatic CO2 than those of other volcanoes.
Except for an error in the text: heavier means more enriched in 13C, the Washington volcanoes seems to be the exceptions on the rule…
Anyway, even these volcanoes are much higher in d13C than fossil fuels (at -24 per mil).
Ferdinand and Werner, sorry, my posts to you yesterday got mangled by my computer, will come back to this later today or tomorrow.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:19 am
Myrrh, you really need to read more about the fate of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 indeed is heavier than air, and large quantities released at once can suffocate people (as happened near some African ond other volcanic lakes).
And why did they suffocate? Because Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and displaces air, i.e. it sinks to the ground, whenever it is available in sufficient quantities it will displace all air, so suffocation. This can happen in mines, pits, breweries, volcanic erruptions. In mines, the lighter than air methane will rise through the air and gather at the ceiling.
That’s what it means to be heavier or lighter than air in the REAL world.
The CO2-rich cloud was expelled rapidly from the southern floor of Lake Nyos. It rose as a jet with a speed of about 100 km per hour. The cloud quickly enveloped houses within the crater that were 120 meters above the shoreline of the lake. Because CO2 is about 1.5 times the density of air, the gaseous mass hugged the ground surface and descended down valleys along the north side of the crater. The deadly cloud was about 50 meters thick and it advanced downslope at a rate of 20 to 50 km per hour. This deadly mist persisted in a concentrated form over a distance of 23 km, bringing sudden death to the villages of Nyos, Kam, Cha, and Subum. http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Nyos.html
Once the force expelling the Carbon Dioxide had ceased, the Carbon Dioxide being heavier than air sank to the ground. This is what happens to all Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere, by default, because that is its nature, among its properties, relative to the atmosphere, and regardless of the amounts. Carbon Dioxide does not readily rise in air, because it is heavier than air, not one molecule of it nor a pool of it.
It’s more than mathematics that’s the problem, see link below, it’s the creation of a unique imaginary molecule unknown to real science which has confusingly also been called Carbon Dioxide. The confusion was created deliberately, the promotion of it is largely through ignorance of the Real Carbon Dioxide, and generally, of our real world.
http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746
But once mixed in, it stays mixed in (except when catched by a tree or water), as all molecules, whatever their relative weight, are colliding with each other, going randomly everywhere. See Brownian motion for particulates even much heavier than air: http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/brownian.htm
Your link causes all my windows to close down instantly.
However, since I have read fairly extensively about Carbon Dioxide and have come across this argument before.. Brownian motion refers to particles being moved in fluids, (liquids or gases). Carbon Dioxide is a gas. It is the fluid medium in which particles move by Brownian motion.
In molecular diffusion, the moving entities are small molecules which are self-propelled by thermal energy and do not require a concentration gradient to spread out through random motion. They move at random because they frequently collide. Diffusion is this thermal motion of all (liquid and gas) molecules [Diffusion is this thermal motion of all fluids (liquid and gas) molecules] at temperatures above absolute zero. Diffusion rate is a function of only temperature, and is not affected by concentration. Brownian motion is observed in molecules that are so large that they are not driven by their own thermal energy but by collisions with solvent particles.
While Brownian motion of large molecules is observable under a microscope, small-molecule diffusion can only be probed in carefully controlled experimental conditions. Under normal conditions, molecular diffusion is relevant only on length scales between nanometer and millimeter. On larger length scales, trasport in liquids and gases is normally due to another transport phenomenon, convection.
Therefore, some often cited examples of diffusion are WRONG: If cologne is sprayed in one place, it will soon be smelled in the entire room, but a simple calculation shows that this cannot be due to diffusion; the cause can only be convection. If ink is dropped in water, one usually observes an inhomogeneous evolution of the spatial distribution, which clearly indicates convection; diffusion dominates only in perfect thermal equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion
I have put in caps what is in italics because I’ve italicised the whole quote.
Do you see the problem I have here with AGW explanations such as yours? Not only do you use bog standard science out of context, you mix up all the concepts and laws to create this AGWCO2.
When each component part is looked at in proper detail, your CO2 doesn’t exist.
And re “trees”, Carbon Dioxide is the food of all plant life which uses photosynthesis for energy production, plants turn Carbon Dioxide into glucose for growth. We are 20% Carbon, we produce our own Carbon Dioxide to enable us to utilise Oxygen efficiently and for other biological processes.
The problem here I’ve found is first of all that there is no real understanding of our atmosphere in AGW, hence all the mix and match concepts and laws to suit this new creation. Your “once mixed in stays mixed in”, is obviously wrong if you consider real life observations of how CO2 behaves because of its real gas properties, when Carbon Dioxide displaces air for example. So where does that come from? See if you can find from which part of Real Science your description was taken to be used out of context in the production of the imaginary gas AGWCO2.
The continuous addition of CO2 shows up near ground as good as at 12 km height, but that takes time, as also the seasonal changes, which occur at ground level show: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg
I shan’t risk opening that at the moment..
However, bearing in mind that CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air which means that it will always sink down through air unless some work is being done to prevent this, how does CO2 get to 12 km, since it isn’t by Brownian motion? Is there any other source of CO2 at the height? Well yes, there’s planes at 30-39,000 ft. That’s large passenger planes, military planes fly much higher. Plumes from errupting volcanoes can be that in height, and much more. The active volcanoes on Hawaii are half that height and continually venting and errupting, which in Hawaii’s winds and heat can carry CO2 higher.
And knowing that because Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and does not readily rise into the atmosphere, local production will tend to stay local, the seasonal changes therefore are local. Which knowledge as background will help in understanding Beck data.
Rain indeed brings some CO2 down from higher altitudes, but the amounts first were released when the ocean water were evaporating. That doesn’t change the amounts that much (no measurable change in CO2 at ground level or 3,400 m height when it rains).
Really? If that comes from Mauna Loa data, forget it, not acceptable to me as fact. The concept of measuring this mythical “background” CO2 (please do prove it exists if you can, and let me know if you can’t), from an area of such intense CO2 production is clearly absurd. It is not a “pristine” site as it is claimed to be by AGW repetition, all measurements will be contaminated by local production. But I could be jumping the gun here, so, what do you have which proves what you say?
I say, “Carbon Dioxide dissolves readily in water forming a weak acid” and “as water falls through the atmosphere it absorbs Carbon Dioxide” are standard knowledge in the real world – so how did these measurements of yours find that the levels were no different at altitude and ground when it rains?
And have a look at the CO2 trends at different heights from ground stations (sea level and mountain), airplanes and satellites… Here for ground stations and aircraft data: htt://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
The satellite data confirm that CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. Not that I’m into conspiracy theories you understand.., but it is a pity that two satellites launched specifically to measure CO2 came to grief before they could do so. As I’ve said before re the stations, these are not trustworthy, from my point of view for many reasons, but by claiming Mauna Loa is a “pristine” site for measuring CO2 when it is obviously not does immediately inspire confidence, and should not inspire confidence. In fact, it should immediately inspire WTFUWT?
Did you read the link I posted which had some more information on stations? http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/ It’s well worth reading. It also looks at the AGW claim that ‘human produced’ CO2 can be differentiated from the rest.
(I have checked and checked my coding… keeping fingers crossed)
Sigh, should be:
..but by claiming Mauna Loa is a “pristine” site for measuring CO2 when it is obviously not does not immediately inspire confidence, and should not inspire confidence. In fact, it should immediately inspire WTFUWT?
…………………………….
Werner Brozek says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:55 am
Gases do not respond to buoyancy in the same way solids in liquids do. If they did, you would never see CFCs high up in the stratosphere. The only gas molecule that is NOT more or less uniformly distributed in the atmosphere is water vapor since it condenses as it gets colder. And there is a lot more carbon dioxide that is at much higher levels than the clouds.
How does water vapour get up there to form clouds?
“Myrrh says:
February 23, 2011 at 8:14 pm
How does water vapour get up there to form clouds?”
You may wish to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
If many different gases were released from a plane, they would go up and down and sideways. Lighter gases would go faster and heavier ones would go slower, but after a certain amount of time, you would find as much of each gas 100 feet lower as at 100 feet higher. This assumes normal diffusion with no wind or other convection currents. And if you wait long enough, both the heaviest and lightest gases will be both near the ground and high up in the stratosphere. The major difference is that light gases like helium can reach escape velocity high up and therefore helium does not accumulate like chlorofluorocarbons for example. Water vapor, due to its polar nature, condenses when the concentration is high enough and it is cold enough. And the large liquid droplets cannot stay suspended but fall as rain. So in answer to your question. Water vapor does what any other gas does, it diffuses all over the place, and it does not matter if the molecular mass is 4 or 100.
If you wish to read all about water, see
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate2.htm#Ice_ages
Werner says:
You may wish to read: http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Kinetic_theory
If many different gases were released from a plane, they would go up and down and sideways. Lighter gases would go faster and heavier ones would go slower, but after a certain amount of time, you would find as much of each gas 100 fett lower as at 100 feet higher. This assumes normal diffusion with no wind or other convection currents. And if you wait long enough, both the heaviest and lightest gases will be both near the ground and high up in the stratosphere. The major difference is that light gases like helium can reach escape velocity high up and therefore helium does not accumulate like chlorofluorocarbons for example. Water vapor due to its polar nature, condenses when the concentration is high enough and it is cold enough. And the the large liquid droplets cannot stay suspended but fall as rain. So in answer to your question. Water vapor does what any other gas does, it diffuses all over the place, and it does not matter if the molecular mass is 4 or 100.
What speeds are the molecules Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour travelling?
The wiki page on this relates this to molecules in a container. Where are the walls of the container constraining the gases from the plane? What is 1950 atmospheres of pressure? How far apart are the helium atoms at 1 atmosphere? How far apart are the molecules of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide?
If you wish to read all about water, see: http://www.seafriends.org/nz/issues/global/climate2/htm#Ice_ages
An, er, interesting page, refuting global warming because of Carbon Dioxide. Substituting a new scare, global food shortage and, I really don’t have time to more than skim it, using the same ‘unprecedented’ re flooding in Australia and heat wave in Russia which is not fact, it appears another variation on the theme. Is this the new meme now that temps are going down regardless we’re pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere? That global cooling causes heat waves? Sorry, if there’s something specific you want to convey to me by posting that site, you’ll have to spell it out.
“Myrrh says:
February 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm
What speeds are the molecules Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour travelling?
The wiki page on this relates this to molecules in a container. Where are the walls of the container constraining the gases from the plane? What is 1950 atmospheres of pressure? How far apart are the helium atoms at 1 atmosphere? How far apart are the molecules of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide?”
The answers to the above can be calculated with university level physics courses but your questions go way beyond this article.
I will just briefly go into the question about speeds below. See the following site for the very simplistic formula 1/2mv2 = 3/2kT and the conditions under which it applies.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html
Very simply, at room temperature and pressure, molecules go about 400 m/s. But heavier molecules go slower and lighter ones faster. As temperatures go up, speeds go up. There is also a certain distribution of speeds so all molecules of a specific element do not go at the same speed at any given split second.
For other items: 1950 atmospheres means the pressure is 1950 times what it is at sea level. At 0 C, there are 6.02 x 10^23 molecules in 22.4 L at sea level.
Werner, thank you, but I’m trying to understand what you’re saying and I don’t speak Maths; you’ll need to work it out for me.
My questions re your post: /#comment-608969
What speeds are the molecules Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapour travelling?
Where are the walls of the container constraining the gases from the plane?
What is 1950 atmospheres of pressure?
How far apart are the helium atoms at 1 atmosphere?
How far apart are the molecules of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide?
But so far, you’re saying the molecules are travelling at around 400 miles per second at room temperature and pressure, some faster some slower.
What’s room temperature? What is room pressure?
“Myrrh says:
February 28, 2011 at 3:35 am
But so far, you’re saying the molecules are traveling at around 400 miles per second at room temperature and pressure, some faster some slower.
What’s room temperature? What is room pressure?”
I was using the metric system where m/s means metres/second.
Room temperature is around 22 C or 295 K or 72 F.
The average pressure at sea level is 1.00 atmospheres which is 101.325 kilopascals or 29.92 inches of mercury.
Werner, this means that a molecule is travelling at 400 metres a second, which is 894.77 miles per hour. That’s fast, doesn’t stay in the room long then if the window is open?
Earth’s atmosphere is pressing down against against every square inch of us at 14.7 lbs per square inch, which is 1 kilogram per square centimeter. Which makes the force on 1,000 square centimetres, around a square foot, about a ton.
Are these mighty molecules? Somehow capable of shoving a ton of weight aside every square foot they travel? I want what they’re eating.
How does sound travel through these speedy molecules?
There is an excellent article just put up at:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/03/climate-time-lag-of-the-mt-pinatubo-eruption/
This talks about the “Climate Time Lag of the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption”. It is very relevant to this discussion about “The life and times of Carbon Dioxide”
“Myrrh says:
March 2, 2011 at 3:07 am”
See http://www.answers.com/topic/mean-free-path
The average distance a molecule moves before hitting another is 68 billionths of a metre at normal sea level pressure. So it is not as if a molecule in the middle of a room can head straight out the window. But as some molecules slowly diffuse out, others diffuse into the room. So if you opened a bottle of perfume in a room and then opened the window, a person outside may smell some after a few minutes.
As for the pounds per square inch, it is not what the molecules are eating but the weight of a square inch of molecules if you pretend a square inch of molecules extends into space from the ground.
As for how sound travels, it is by a series of compressions and rarefactions of air molecules that travel out from a source. Check physics texts or google for more information on this and other things.