AGW and Model Failures- An Engineers Point of View....

[IanC]

The engineer in Langley only suggested that the term for CO2 be taken out of equation and stand alone as a separate term, not a multiplier for everything else. We know that the Earth has maintained a stable temp for billions of years, at least since the atmosphere stabilized at this composition. CO2 is a bit player, H2O is the driver.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Atmospheric CO2 has half life of just 7 years.

Prove it

Recent studies show the C13 molecule dating to be flawed by a factor of over 100.

Let's see them.

The last 18 years 3 months have see no warming on earth. Yet the CO2 rise continues unabated. There IS no corresponding rise of temp.

Show us that the oceans have not warmed for the last 18 years and 3 months.

Prior to this pause natural variation is responsible for 100% of all warming by empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence?

IF carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels only stayed in the atmosphere a few years, say five years, then there may not be quite the urgency currently associated with anthropogenic global warming. Indeed it might be argued that the problem of elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be easily reversed as soon as alternative fuel sources where found and/or just before a tipping point was reached. The general consensus, however, is not five years, but rather more in the range of 50 to 200 years.

But in a new technical paper to be published in the journal ‘Energy and Fuels’, Robert Essenhigh from Ohio State University, throws doubt on this consensus. Using the combustion/chemical-engineering Perfectly Stirred Reactor (PSR) mixing structure, or 0-D Box, as the basis of a model for residence time in the atmosphere, he explains that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are likely to have a residence time of between 5 and 15 years. He further concludes that the current trend of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is not from anthropogenic sources, but due to natural factors.

Here’s the abstract:

"The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), , with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether: (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if >100 years; or (2) not to attempt control, if ~10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First (1990) Climate Change Report where, in the opening Policymakers Summary of the Report, the RT is stated to be in the range 50 to 200 years; and, (largely) based on that, it was also concluded in the Report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely-accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC Report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting-documents of the report as being, separately: (1) a long-term (~100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources; and, (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere, of ~4 years. As check on that differentiation, and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering Perfectly Stirred Reactor (PSR) mixing structure, or 0-D Box, for the model-basis, as alternative to the more-commonly used Global Circulation Models (GCM’s), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere, then, using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data: (1) support the validity of the PSR model-application in this context; and (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) residence times for CO2 of: ~5 years carrying C12; and of ~16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4-year) value, separately, in agreement with most other data sources and notably a (1998) listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range 5 to 15 years. Additionally, the analytical results then also support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (~100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950’s/60’s which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value, and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from, and jointly providing validation for, the PSR analysis. With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently-based) conclusion that the long-term (~100-year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most probably the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident."

Source

Even the IPCC admits in previous reports the half life of CO2 is just 4 years... Not the 50-300 they touted to policy makers.. They lied outright and knew from the beginning that CO2 was NOT A PROBLEM!

 

[Billy_Bob]

"A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Spencer, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.

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."

There are many more papers confirming the very short half life one must simply know how to use Google and then set aside your cult AGW beliefs.

Source

 

[mamooth]

So in other words, no peer-reviewed science from Billy. Just a lot of Hockey Schtick handwaving, mostly wild claims from tunnel-vision-blinded engineers.

Naturally, Billy has an excuse. They don't publish in the normal science journals because there's a conspiracy to censor them. The denier conspiracy is clever that way, in that the lack of evidence for their conspiracy is taken as evidence for their conspiracy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

******* Moron....

Both papers are peer reviewed... yet you have no facts just ignorant drivel from a hairball... you cant even read... what a ******* idiot you are..

 

[Billy_Bob]

ROFL what a ******* moron you are.

Silly asshole, have you nothing at all to say, other than 'moron'? Probably not, that would require a bit of thought.

We've had this EFFING SAME CONVERSATION 5000 TIMES YA MORON. Has your view on this topic changed? Or did you forget the other 4999 times we discussed it?

And for the 5001st time, I will state that you are an ignoramous with zero knowledge of the science, and a willing liar for the energy companies.

and yet, you can't desprove Herr Koch's experiment from 1901. dude, provide your lab work first before you go off half cocked with your normal insulting behavior. See, you still haven't produced it.

Herr Kochs experiment has been shown to be invalid many times.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little (7*)

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)

Interesting that none of the people that were so vocal in critisizeing Arrhenius are much remembered, with the exception of Angstrom, while you cannot study chemistry without repeatedly seeing Arrhenius's name.

This makes me laugh...

SO according to your highlighting, this paper justifies the necessity to place 7,000 ppm (by mix ratio) into the cylinder so that at 60,000 feet the level of CO2 is 400ppm (due to molecular weight as the earths atmosphere is not well mixed) as that is the only way that level can be obtained.. Herr Koch was correct, Arrhenius was wrong an many counts.

IT's rather funny that you keep going back to failed hypothesis to prove your points. Your love of Wiki and Connelly's rewriting of history is proof of just how dangerous alarmists are to this world. The ends justify the means in your world view..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So in other words, no peer-reviewed science from Billy. Just a lot of Hockey Schtick handwaving, mostly wild claims from tunnel-vision-blinded engineers.

Naturally, Billy has an excuse. They don't publish in the normal science journals because there's a conspiracy to censor them. The denier conspiracy is clever that way, in that the lack of evidence for their conspiracy is taken as evidence for their conspiracy.

^ What's the problem? Time to move to the Congo and get them to cut their carbon footprint

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

Old Crock shows his usual lack of understanding and throws and adhomenim Bomb.. Usual denier drivel from the science denier.

Old Rocks only accepts government approved facts. He'll make a great little minion in the coming libturd police state.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL. Another fruitloop non-scientist. No, I will not bother or waste my time reading anything out of WUWT.

Old Crock shows his usual lack of understanding and throws and adhomenim Bomb.. Usual denier drivel from the science denier.

Old Rocks only accepts government approved facts. He'll make a great little minion in the coming libturd police state.

He and Mamooth are busy ironing their brown shirts...

 

[IanC]

obviously there are many pathways where by CO2 gets recycled into and out of the atmosphere. some are short, some are long. some scale up or down, others are relatively constant. homeostasis will do what it has always done.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Leo Smiths summation clearly and solidly refutes AGW of any kind as noise within a chaotic system which we have no control over.

The point finally is this: To an engineer, climate science as the IPCC have it is simplistic nonsense. There are far far better models available, to explain climate change based on the complexity of water interactions with temperature. Unfortunately they are far too complex even for the biggest of computers to be much use in simulating climate. And have no political value anyway, since they will essentially say ‘Climate changes irrespective of human activity, over 100 thousand year major cycles, and within that its simply unpredictable noise due to many factors none of which we have any control over’

End IPCC and CAGW horse crap..

 

[mamooth]

He and Mamooth are busy ironing their brown shirts...

So a proud Stalinist like Billy is calling people Nazis? That's hilarious.

Billy, Bri, Ian, Frank ... all the deniers on this thread want the government to jail climate scientists who disagree with their political party. Nearly every denier anywhere wants that.

Deniers want the government to stomp on free speech. That makes them the enemies of freedom and democracy, and all decent people are morally bound to oppose them.

Billy, if you'd like to show us you're not a proud Stalinist, you know how to do it. Just publicly condemn the denier tactic of trying to get climate scientists jailed. Do it right here. If you won't, that proves your loyalty to a Stalinist cult.

In direct contrast, nobody on the rational side here calls for jailing anyone. It's a freedom thing, so deniers wouldn't understand.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He and Mamooth are busy ironing their brown shirts...

So a proud Stalinist like Billy is calling people Nazis? That's hilarious.

Billy, Bri, Ian, Frank ... all the deniers on this thread want the government to jail climate scientists who disagree with their political party. Nearly every denier anywhere wants that.

Deniers want the government to stomp on free speech. That makes them the enemies of freedom and democracy, and all decent people are morally bound to oppose them.

Billy, if you'd like to show us you're not a proud Stalinist, you know how to do it. Just publicly condemn the denier tactic of trying to get climate scientists jailed. Do it right here. If you won't, that proves your loyalty to a Stalinist cult.

In direct contrast, nobody on the rational side here calls for jailing anyone. It's a freedom thing, so deniers wouldn't understand.

Your projection is stunning... This is a method used by the Nazis and Communists to project their own actions on others in the hope to make it appear that they are not the ones doing it and deflect the rage of a people. Your smoke and mirrors dont work half wit! We know what you are and who you are!

 

[mamooth]

As far as deflections go, Billy's whining there just failed. And it notably failed to condemn the denier attempts to get the government to jail climate scientists.

Conclusion: Billy confirms his status as a proud Stalinist thug.

I find it hilarious, the fervor of the denier cultists here. It wouldn't hurt their case at all just to say "Yes, the deniers went too far when they attempted to jail climate scientists". But not a single one of them will say it. None of them has the courage to break out of lockstep with their cult. Their cult supports Stalinist thug tactics, so they support Stalinist thug tactics. Whatever the cult says, goes, period, no dissent permitted.

 

[jc456]

As far as deflections go, Billy's whining there just failed. And it notably failed to condemn the denier attempts to get the government to jail climate scientists.

Conclusion: Billy confirms his status as a proud Stalinist thug.

I find it hilarious, the fervor of the denier cultists here. It wouldn't hurt their case at all just to say "Yes, the deniers went too far when they attempted to jail climate scientists". But not a single one of them will say it. None of them has the courage to break out of lockstep with their cult. Their cult supports Stalinist thug tactics, so they support Stalinist thug tactics. Whatever the cult says, goes, period, no dissent permitted.

and still nothing of substance and no proof Herr Koch was in error. Hmmmmm. checkmate!!!! don't go away mad muskrat, just go away!!

 

[mamooth]

jc, do you condemn or support the attempts by deniers to get climate scientists jailed?

 

[jc456]

jc, do you condemn or support the attempts by deniers to get climate scientists jailed?

Where's the lab work to prove any denier warmist's point? hmmmm..... BTW, I think it's called FRAUD!!!!!! Now is fraud a crime? hmmmm?

 

[RKMBrown]

jc, do you condemn or support the attempts by deniers to get climate scientists jailed?

You talking about the ones that got caught committing fraud? Don't you think someone spending taxpayer money fraudulently should be sent to jail?

 

[mamooth]

But none were caught committing fraud. Only shameless cult liars try to get away with passing off a whopper like that.

The Stalinists used that tactic too, you know, making up phony crimes to charge scientists with to justify sending them to the gulag.

Basically, if anyone is pretending scientists committed fraud to justify jailing them, they are further confirming their own status as Stalinist thugs.