CO2 having life of 5 years

Despite the at times hard to follow translation, hammers on the CO2 curve used by the IPCC as shown in fig 1 does not make sense against various pieces of data. 

The figure 1 is a good one as is the cross-section infographic.   Figure 2 shows the assumptions for CO2 as compared to other gases, so it is suspect.   The nuclear decay curve is used to criticize the IPCC assumptions.  

Analysis finds man-made CO2 emissions only remain in atmosphere for ~5 years, not thousands

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/analysis-finds-co2-emissions-only.html

Friday, May 17, 2013

The IPCC claims man-made CO2 emissions [only 4% of total CO2 emissions] remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, as opposed to the 96% of CO2 emissions from nature which have a lifetime of only about 5 years.  Climate scientist Pehr Björnbom, author of a published paper finding low CO2 climate sensitivity, has a new post today on the fallacy that man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.  Dr. Bjornbom reviews the findings of Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, and author of the book 'False Alarm.' Dr. Pettersson finds the computer model ["The Bern Model'] used by the IPCC to predict CO2 lifetimes of over 100 years is highly flawed and is strongly contradicted by observations from both atomic bomb testing and atmospheric levels of CO2 [the Keeling Curve]. 

Reblogged from "The Climate Scam" (Netherlands, Google translation):

Climate simulations and observations are contrary to each other: Bomb Test Curve

17/05/2013 by Pehr Björnbom .

Gösta Pettersson points out that bomb test curve is not consistent with climate models, mainly the so-called Bern model. Here I compare the simulations with the Bern model published by Solomon et al (2009) with bomb test curve. It is clear that theory and observations are strongly in conflict.

Gösta Pettersson, who is professor emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, in his book False Alarm (see references below) and in a guest post at TCS brought the issue of bomb test curve, namely the curve of the reduction of the presence of measurable radioactive carbon dioxide from nuclear bomb tests in atmosphere. I believe that Gösta Pettersson's book is a very valuable popular science topics in climate change. It gives a skeptical, thoughtful and coherent story about climate science. One of the most central parts of the book is the story of the bomb test curve.

It is generally accepted in the climate science of the very long term, then human (anthropogenic) emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the ocean and biosphere was close to 100% because the kolreservoaren in the sea is about 60 times larger than kolreservoaren the atmosphere.The big question is not whether this will happen, but how fast it goes. This is where the bomb test curve comes into play.

Read more in False Alarm 7.6 Carbon Occupy Gets equilibria   A link

Bomb Test curve shows how the levels of radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide has varied over time. What has happened is that the atmospheric nuclear tests, as at Bikini Atoll as seen in the picture, generated large amounts of radioactive C14 emissions.  As long as these atmospheric bomb test went so step therefore the content of this through its radioactivity directly measurable carbon drastically over the natural level (due to the formation of C14 due to cosmic rays).  But finally came the great powers agreed to stop the atmospheric bomb tests, and so ceased thus these issues.  In Figure 1 we see bomb test curve in the upper diagram, which is Figure 31 in the False Alarms, and a comparison of the bomb test curve and Bern model in the bottom, which is Figure 34 in False alaram.

Solomon et al (2009) have used the Bern model simulations of how carbon dioxide levels will evolve under different assumptions about the issues.  They have assumed that emissions first increase roughly at the same accelerated rate as today that at a certain carbon concentration suddenly cease.  In Figure 2, we see a couple of charts from their article.

In the upper diagram in Figure 2, which is part of Figure 1 in Solomon and others, have been simulated the carbon dioxide content in the air will increase if emissions increase logarithmically with 2% per year to a certain peak value, several different cases, whereupon emissions ceases.  The curves after the peak value, which thus assumes that emissions have ceased, are analogous to bomb test curve.

In the lower graph, which is Figure S2 in Solomon and others, announces title that shows decay (U.S. falloff) of the human contribution to atmospheric concentrations (CO2 curves are represented by a gray cone) after the anthropogenic emissions ceased.  This description matches exactly with bomb test curve that just shows the decay of the human contribution to C14 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after emissions stopped by the prohibition of nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

In the lower graph in Figure 2 has avklingningsförloppen illustrated with the same sort of scale on the y-axis (0-1 or percentage) of the bomb test curve after the introduction into the atmosphere has ceased, not only carbon dioxide, but to several different topics. The carbon avklingningsförlopp varies according Bern model is dependent on the added amount and therefore illustrated as an ostrich.

These curves according to Solomon and others would thus equally be simulations with Bern model of the C14 carbon dioxide from the bomb sample decays in the atmosphere.  To those of Solomon and others called simulations of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, decay (U.S. falloff) in the atmosphere makes no difference (although the radioactive 14C-carbon dioxide from bomb tests, incidentally anthropogenic).  It is truly remarkable, then, therefore, that the simulated curves of Bern model differs so sharply against the observed bomb test curve as illustrated in Figure 1, lower graph, Figure 34 from Gösta Pettersson's book False Alarm.

Decay curves can be interpreted with the IPCC's view of the carbon cycle, Figure 3 from IPCC 2007.

Section for a video or follow-on comment

We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is.   As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.

So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities.  Why?

Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?

Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?

When do deficits and governments become too large?

Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?