This piece makes a number of unverified assumptions and seeks to obfuscate through omission empirical-based peer-reviewed papers that counter what are simply model-based computed outputs being treated as "new" data. Limited space precludes a thorough deconstruction of this polemic. I will concentrate on one erroneous assumption: "Because CO2 is cumulative, with atmospheric residence time on the scale of centuries to millennia . . "

There is virtually no molecular difference between natural and anthropogenic CO2 in terms of heating behaviour and estimated lifetime in the atmosphere before reabsorption by oceans, photosynthetic organisms or plant life, meaning that firstly, anthropogenic CO2 is readily absorbed into the carbon cycle and secondly, both natural and anthropogenic CO2 behaviours in relation to global warming are identical.

Segalstad suggests the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is around 4%. Segalstad comment is based on a compilation by Sundquist that lists the results of 36 separate studies, based on a number of different measurement methods, that give an atmospheric CO2 residence or turnover time ranging between two and 25 years.

Approximately 135 giga-tonnes (about 18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool are exchanged each year. This large and fast natural CO2 cycling flux is far more than the approximately 6 giga-tonnes of carbon in the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere. On these figures, anthropogenic CO2 accounts for just 4.45% of the annual atmospheric turnover. It is only this 4.45% that various governments and the Copenhagen conference allegedly seek to influence with the various emission trading schemes being proposed, the remaining 95.55% being naturally-derived CO2.

The atmospheric lifetime of CO2, when measured directly or by inference, is vastly different to that quoted in the IPCC assessment reports. The IPCC assumes an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 50 to 200 years. Their carbon cycle modelling is based on the assumption that the natural exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean is already in equilibrium, and that most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is therefore anthropogenic. Continued

This assumption is incorrect. The IPCC's assertion of a CO2 residence time of up to 200 years is not valid as it dismisses Henry's Law. The CO2 atmosphere-ocean equilibrium is governed by Henry’s Law that states: at a constant temperature the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. In other words, the partial pressure of CO2 in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in the water. With increasing temperature gas solubility decreases thereby raising the partial pressure of the gas in the liquid allowing more gas to escape, in order to maintain equilibrium. Note that processes operating under Henry's Law are driven by changes in temperature, not CO2.

Under Henry’s Law the atmosphere-ocean equilibrium is maintained even with the addition of anthropogenic CO2 sources. Conversely, there is a temperature-dependent corresponding outgassing from the oceans to the atmosphere, again maintaining equilibrium. In other words, anthropogenic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, it is absorbed into the carbon cycle within relatively short time frames.

I suspect that Dr Glikson (admittedly promulgated by the IPCC reports) has confused the residence time of a parcel of CO2 molecules, be it derived naturally or anthropogenically, with the time taken for a mass of additional anthropogenically-derived CO2 returning to an equilibrium based on a pre-determined and pre-existing atmospheric condition, in this case, around the time of the start of the Industrial Revolution.

From my readings I would suggest that the increase in atmospheric CO2 possibly began as far back as 3000 years BCE as humans modified and destroyed the forests at the dawn of agriculture. That such destruction continues at a pace today is a serious cause of concern, as is the unregulated release of anthropogenic gases such as HFCs and NF3, and particulate pollution, problems we can solve now without the introduction of a global system of carbon trading that will mostly profit carbon traders and will do virtually nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

If every house in AU had one kw of solar panels on their property,
how much coal would that save. Right now i am generating 6.5 kwh's
/ day. With the govt by back i am getting free power.

Geoff Davies,

I read through some of Mark Diesendorf's and found it strong in rhetoric, but very weak in actual research.

Mark is a qualified environmentalist, but he has no qualifications or experience what so ever in power generation or distribution. Neither has he bothered to engage with anyone in the industry who might have pointed to the massive flaws in his papers.

I also noted that his papers were "peer reviewed" by relatives or others with non power related qualifications.

More applicable papers would be those by the CSIRO whose various scenarios for 2050 all require large base load generation. The savings in CO2 required to meet the 50% (of 1990 levels) are reliant on new technologies yet to be developed such as:

1 High efficiency coal fired turbine engines,
2 Geothermal hot rocks
3 Carbon capture and storage,
4 Economical solar storage

and /or nuclear.

It is notable that the enthusiastic optimism that many people have for 2 and 4 is not shared by the CSIRO, and 2 and 4 look set to dramatically increase generation costs.

This is also echoed by the Mckinsey report.

Soft and floppy mental pap born from insecurity and being bullied at school. Half the whacko environmentalist movement is nothing more than third rate minds crying out for mummy love, except they've replaced mummy with gaia.

Almost all of these nutters belong to crypto-whacko, 'we're all doomed', end of the earth cults, who worship nature - aka agrarian nazi love of soils and blood - yet who've already decided we're all going to fry in hell, so there.

They are anti-humanist, anti-democratic and completely devoid of any economic credentials. They are Facebook intellectuals or 'ineffectuals'. They would rather save a tree from burning than a baby from drowning.

In twenty years time they will write the history of these times and writ large will be the fraud these whackos, in league with the media, perpetuated on the Australian people

Yes, good planets are hard to find. Isn't it a pity that bad scientists aren't just as hard to find.

There only has to be a hint, of the possibility, that something, just may, threaten their tax payer funding, & thousands roar into print. It's a bit frightening to see just how many of them we are paying for, for so little, that such a funding threat, brings out of the woodwork.

This bloke makes the fourth today.