MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The difference now is that we are adding millions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere unaturally... It comes from vaporizing fossil fuels. Unh... just for your information: Sulfate aerosols, which result from burning coal, biomass, and volcanic eruptions, tend to cool the Earth. ~NASA: Global Climate Change More CO2 hijinks:The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica, are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC... The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high"... the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis... An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence, solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record, and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption", but they failed. The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. From the Predicting the Predictable Department: Sourcewatch doesn't like the author of the above. K. To the paper of JAWOROWSKI: For years he emphasizes only the difficulties of these studies, formulates the underlying assumptions which sometimcs are only partly fulfilled and criticizes the work performed hitherto in an unscrupulous manner. He does this without any appreciation for the development of expertise in this field over several decades. Thus he extrapolates from contamination problems in improvised pioneering experiments in the late sixties to more recent (1992) similar experiments on the Greenland ice cap for which special equipment was developed. Some of his statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view, e.g. the statement that CO2 at 70 m depth in the ice begins to change into solid clathrates. Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. But JAWOROWSKI maintains that the age of the ice and that of the occluded gases are the same and shifts the CO2 increase revealed from studies of the SIPLE core which in the uppermost part overlaps convincingly with the atmospheric measurements by ca. 100 years back in time (assuming identical ages for the ice and the gases in the ice). Why should there be such a drastic increase of CO2 and of CH4 in the middle of the 19th century? The vaporization of any solid, results in CO2 entering the atmosphere as of carbon is the base of matter. The question is how much and from what source ? The answer is that a much more CO2 is being introduced into the atmosphere as a result of continued industry's and consumer energy needs and the burning of same. EIA: The combustion of coal, however, adds a significant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per unit of heat energy, more than does the combustion of other fossil fuels.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 7/6/2011 11:03:47 AM >
|