Artikel: CO2's levetid i atmosfæren er kun 5,4 år
| Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years10-08-2013 12:32 | |
Eyvind Dk ★★☆☆☆(288) |
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 %) 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. [trådens overskrift oversat til dansk] It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) Redigeret af branner d. 03-09-2014 20:06 |
| 12-08-2013 22:32 | |
| SRJ★★★☆☆ (462) |
Det er vist ikke en artikel (paper) men et abstract for en præsentation til konference. Og argumenterne holder ikke, se diskussionen her. Tilføjet: Fra bloggens "About" hvor forfatteren skriver om sig selv:
I kommentarene til indlægget om CO2-artiklen er der bidrag (de er enigee med indlægget) fra flere navngivne klimaforskere, bl. a. Victor Venema som er uddannet fysiker men i dag arbejder med statistiske metoder til at korrigere temperaturmålinger for ikke-klimatiske påvirkninger. Redigeret d. 12-08-2013 23:07 |
| 12-08-2013 22:56 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
SRJ skrev: Hvem er forfatteren? Hvad betyder; Watt about a mole at Al Gore's course? (Jeg forstår godt hvert enkelt ord, men ikke sammenhængen.) It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
| 12-08-2013 23:11 | |
| Kristoffer Haldrup★★★☆☆ (824) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:SRJ skrev: Forfatter: http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/about/ "Watt about a mole at Al Gore's course?": http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/guest-post-watt-about-a-mole-at-al-gores-course/ |
| 12-08-2013 23:20 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: "For the moment, I've decided to remain anonymous. I don't really know why." Ja, så er jeg stået af! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) Redigeret d. 12-08-2013 23:21 |
| 12-08-2013 23:35 | |
| SRJ★★★☆☆ (462) |
Eyvind Dk skrev:Kristoffer Haldrup skrev: Jamen så læs da kommentaren af Victor Venema*. Her er hvad han skriver om det abstract - han påpeger at abstractet er fejlbehæftet: They seem to be physical chemists. For the typical laboratory work they do, their thinking is mostly right. I guess there you normally do not have additional reservoirs (biosphere, ocean) that are even larger than the one you are measuring (atmosphere). *) Hvis du vil vide mere om ham så læs hans blog. Den er nem at finde med Google. Eller via linket på den blog kommentaren er fra. ------------------------------------------------------ For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. |
| 12-08-2013 23:59 | |
| Eyvind Dk★★☆☆☆ (288) |
SRJ skrev:*) Hvis du vil vide mere om ham så læs hans blog. Den er nem at finde med Google. Eller via linket på den blog kommentaren er fra. Fandt ikke noget særligt af interesse! Begge blogs synes at have fået Anthony Watts på hjernen! It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.(Richard Feynman) |
Deltag aktivt i debatten Artikel: CO2's levetid i atmosfæren er kun 5,4 år:
Lignende indhold
| Debatter | Svar | Seneste indlæg |
| Direkte målinger af CO2s effekt i atmosfæren | 59 | 29-09-2022 21:08 |
| Er der for lidt CO2 i atmosfæren? | 15 | 23-09-2022 20:54 |
| CO2s opløselighed i vand | 11 | 22-10-2021 14:44 |
| Studer GRACE's bidrag til forståelse af klimaændringer - nyskabende artikel | 2 | 28-09-2020 17:54 |
| Bill Gates og FN - En artikel med bid i | 5 | 24-08-2019 08:10 |
| Artikler |
| Atmosfære |
| Atmosfæren (Bionyt: 500 svar om klima) |
| Nyheder | Dato |
| Varme i Arktis gav mere metan i atmosfæren | 29-09-2009 06:50 |
| Mere metan i atmosfæren | 20-03-2009 09:04 |
| Allerede farligt meget CO2 i atmosfæren | 10-11-2008 09:28 |
| Støvsug CO2 ud af atmosfæren | 17-10-2008 07:58 |