This is a worring article.
From my reading of it seems we have bugger-all idea about CO2, how much there is , wher it goes, how it is stored etc.
Maybe I need to read it again
What do you get from a reading of it?
Quote:
|
The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported
. . .
Vegetation absorbs CO2 the fastest, but it’s also one of the least well understood
. . .
The result is that a simple “half-life” model doesn’t work for carbon dioxide - the physical system has too many variable and components to claim that CO2 has an single atmospheric lifetime. Or, to borrow an analogy from the paper:
. . .
a simple “half-life” model doesn’t work for carbon dioxide
. . .
the IPCC also shares some of the blame for the confusion about CO2 lifetime.
. . .
a certain percentage of the emitted CO2 will persist effectively forever.
. . .
The third thing to realize is that it may not be possible to return to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations without developing cost-effective absorption technology or radically altering land use to absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as possible.
. . .
An article in the NYTimes talks about some of the new systems being implemented that will improve global monitoring of CO2.
. . .
Better data, more geographic coverage, continuous measurements, independent calibration. All are good things for scientists studying CO2.
|
Scholars and Rogues The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported
