Sonic,
As discusses in IPCC AR6
The IPCC AR6 refers to “multiple lifetimes for CO2” without specifying which ones [32] (p. 302, Table 2.2; p. 1017, Table 7.15).
Apparently, the residence time (and IPCC’s “lifetime” may take any positive real value, if modeled as a stochastic variable, yet it has certain statistics, such as a mean, which IPCC avoids specifying, preferring to report that the values are multiple. It is interesting that the same reports give specific values for other substances. The reasons for this special treatment of CO2 by IPCC may be inferred from what follows.
3.2. Separate Treatment of CO2 Depending on Its Origin
The ambiguity is accompanied by inappropriate assumptions and speculations, the weirdest of which is that the behavior of the CO2 in the atmosphere depends on its origin and that CO2 emitted by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion has higher residence time than when naturally emitted. This is clear in the IPCC AR5:
Simulations with climate–carbon cycle models show multi-millennial lifetime of the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
[31] (p. 435)
It is also repeated in IPCC AR6:
This delay between a peak in emissions and a decrease in concentration is a manifestation of the very long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere; part of the CO2 emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia.
[32] (p. 642 FAQ 4.2)
(This weird idea has a long history, as it was thought from the beginning of climate modeling that the fate of anthropogenic CO2 is different from that of the natural CO2. For example, Joos et al. )
- Forums
- Political Debate
- The Politics of Man Made CO2. Not Science Based
The Politics of Man Made CO2. Not Science Based, page-3
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 14 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)