IPCC CO2 Science vs. Majority of Peer-Reviewed Research

[daveman]

Apparently, 4 degrees spells climate doom | Watts Up With That?

That's what happens when you try to make reality fit your model, instead of making your model fit reality -- as is done in normal science.

 

[Mr. H.]

Damn, that sticks out like poodle's hard on.

 

[daveman]

Damn, that sticks out like poodle's hard on.

I can't wait to hear why the IPCC's estimate is correct and ALL those other peer-reviewed studies are wrong.

It'll probably be something like "It just is, you stupid denier!!"

 

[percysunshine]

I think all of the other studies were fabricated by the CIA

Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - Investigations

 

[Impenitent]

The simple answer is your chart author confuses co2 residence with co2 lifetime. The residence of a co2 molecule is only a few years before it is exchanged with another. But the molecule does not go away. 100 years lifetime is actually on the conservative side the the scale.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthony Watt has a wondrous talent of finding a new way to lie every day.

 

[daveman]

The simple answer is your chart author confuses co2 resilience with co2 lifetime. The resilience of a co2 molecule is only a few years before it is exchanged with another. But the molecule does not go away. 100 years lifetime is actually on the conservative side the the scale.

The word "resilience" is not in the chart, nor is it in the linked article.

Try again.

 

[daveman]

Anthony Watt has a wondrous talent of finding a new way to lie every day.

Where did he lie?

 

[Kosh]

Anthony Watt has a wondrous talent of finding a new way to lie every day.

Where did he lie?

I wouldn't expect an answer from the AGW hacks, they claim to know more about science than anyone else yet still show they have no clue about science.

 

[Impenitent]

The simple answer is your chart author confuses co2 resilience with co2 lifetime. The resilience of a co2 molecule is only a few years before it is exchanged with another. But the molecule does not go away. 100 years lifetime is actually on the conservative side the the scale.

The word "resilience" is not in the chart, nor is it in the linked article.

Try again.

Spellchecker can be such an unforgiving bitch.

 

[Kosh]

The simple answer is your chart author confuses co2 resilience with co2 lifetime. The resilience of a co2 molecule is only a few years before it is exchanged with another. But the molecule does not go away. 100 years lifetime is actually on the conservative side the the scale.

The word "resilience" is not in the chart, nor is it in the linked article.

Try again.

Spellchecker can be such an unforgiving bitch.

The current thinking even by the AGW loyalists is that CO2 only stays in the atmosphere for 5 years.

Although no real tests have been performed to prove or disprove this, that is the current thinking. Although there is a push by the AGW church to claim that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a millennia. However they need to push that agenda to once again try and make the AGW religion relevant.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The lifetime of CO2 is 5.4 years in the world of science. In the IPCC world, it is impossible to know or measure.

 

[Old Rocks]

Our resident ignoramouses cannot get their small intellects around this;

CO2 has a short residence time

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10)

 

[Old Rocks]

Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.
It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.
The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Residence Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Fig. 9a: Decay of a small pulse of CO2 added to today's atmosphere, based on analytic approximation to the Bern carbon cycle model
(Joos F et al., An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanc and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake, Tellus, 48B, 397-417, 1996; Shine et al., Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases, Clim. Change, 68, 281-302, 2005, see equation given in figure).
In this approximation of the carbon cycle,

about 1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere after 100 years, and
1/5 after 1000 years.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OMG WE R SO FUCKD. THANKS ROCKS!

 

[Old Rocks]

OMG WE R SO FUCKD. THANKS ROCKS!

In other words, you have no answers to real information from scientists. And yes, someone as willfully ignorant as you is obviously ever so fucked.

 

[Abraham3]

As I've said before, if you want to apply skepticism somewhere fruitful, apply it to the specious maunderings of Anthony Watts.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm wondering if Daveman, Mr H andPercySunshine are going to admit their mistake.

 

[westwall]

The simple answer is your chart author confuses co2 residence with co2 lifetime. The resilience of a co2 molecule is only a few years before it is exchanged with another. But the molecule does not go away. 100 years lifetime is actually on the conservative side the the scale.

Oh goody! Another silly person pushing the long debunked "mass balance argument" bullcrap.

Geee, where to begin... Hmmm the mass balance equation that you use is a single equation with two or more unknowns, unsolvable for a unique solution. The unknowns of course are natural sources, natural sinks (the oceans and limestone as an example), and finally anthropogenic sinks (ag & fertilization from man-made CO2). So, you only have 1 variable (of FOUR) that is actually known with a reasonable degree of certainty in that single equation, thus proving nothing.

Add to that the fact that the three variables are DYNAMIC and not STATIC (kind of like your brain) and you can see why your supposition is just simply stupid from the get go.

See how science works? Pretty cool huh! All those neat little variables and things that make you guys look like absolute fools.