The Revelle Factor vs Henry’s law

[Sunsettommy]

Digging into the core

October 18,2011

Richard Evans

EXCERPT:

The IPCC steadfastly maintain that atmospheric lifetime for anthropogenic CO2 is as high as 200 years. Given the unquestionably short residence time for atmospheric CO2, as I have shown here, how then does the IPCC maintain such a long residence time for anthropogenic CO2? Simply, they argue that the oceans can only absorb 10% of anthropogenic CO2 because of the so-called Revelle Factor.

LINK

[Climate Realist]

But Zibignieu Jarowovski found in his research for the Soviet government that CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of 5-7 years. This study was from looking at the aftermath of nuclear tests and what happened to the isotope levels before and after nuclear blasts and over several years.

Pretty conclusive experimental based work compared to Roger Revelle's woolly theory!

[Sunsettommy]

Here are many more research papers.Showing short residence times.

Dr. Revelle published one paper on it in 1957.

LINK

[Derek]

(01-10-2012 07:17 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Digging into the core

October 18,2011

Richard Evans

EXCERPT:

The IPCC steadfastly maintain that atmospheric lifetime for anthropogenic CO2 is as high as 200 years. Given the unquestionably short residence time for atmospheric CO2, as I have shown here, how then does the IPCC maintain such a long residence time for anthropogenic CO2?

If I open a bottle of fizzy pop, how long does it take to go flat??
When I boil a pan of water, are the bubbles on the inside of the pan before it boils degassing CO2?
If I leave the pan of water to cool for a week or so, then reboil it, do the same small bubbles of CO2 "reappear"?
The IPCC seems to think both of the above should take 200 years.....
Henry's law rules OK in my opinion, reality is not the IPCC pseudo science / bull dung.

I also always giggle when IPCC says Anthropogenic CO2, like nature can determine the difference between
natural and human activity emitted atmospheric CO2, nature can not obviously, but IPCC is dependent upon nature being able to.....

Let me put it this way, I chop a tree down in the Brazillian rain forest and burn it, to clear land so McDonalds can "grow more burgers".
OK, that releases CO2 that would not of been emitted then because of human activity.
Now let us say a lightening strike fells a tree and starts a fire that burns the tree, perfectly naturally, man not involved at all.
How can "nature" determine which atmospheric CO2 molecule was released by man or nature, and thus decide which to absorb or not to absorb??????
Can nature read the reason the CO2 was emitted in CO2?? Who or what in this case started the fire that burnt the tree, that released the CO2. Nature, IPCC says, KNOWS....
Dam, should say the IPCC, that is our 200 year human activity emitted CO2 "atmospheric lifetime" assumption down the drain.
Nature does not distinquish between natural and human activity emitted CO2, because nature can not determine such.

Isotopes of Carbon, other than C12 are just a way to obfusicate by IPCC, they are too small to matter in any meaningful or relevant respect.

BTW - THE WAY IPCC "maintains", or rather creates in the first place a 200 year lifetime for atmospheric human activity emitted CO2 is by the Ao term in the Bern2.5 Carbon Cycle Pulse Decay model they use.
Questioning Climate showed this several years ago now. In short the Ao term means a certain percentage (21.3% from memory) of any human activity emitted atmospheric CO2 remains in the atmosphere PERMANENTLY...
That is why IPCC stops calculating when it does, it knows it's equation hides a rediculous and wholly unphysical term, the Ao term in the Bern2.5 CC Pulse Decay model.
Questioning Climate plotted this most dramatically in the below linked to plot.
(Which anyone can recreate by simply using the IPCC equation with the Ao term in it...
The equation, and official explanation by IPCC, which confirms the above is in the AR4 report.)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Ques...mhm1_1.htm
Why no one picked up on this revelation by Questioning Climate I do not know?
I have mentioned it frequently over the years in numerous places, yet
no one, anywhere to date, seems to realise the importance of what Q_C showed and showed beyond any reasonable doubt.