Content uploaded by Tom Segalstad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tom Segalstad on Feb 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Carbon cycle modelling and
the residence time of natural and
anthropogenic atmospheric CO
2
:
on the construction of the
"Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad
Mineralogical-Geological Museum
University of Oslo
Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
Norway
When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930).
Abstract
The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO
2
increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and
rejected: CO
2
measurements from ice cores; CO
2
measurements in air; and carbon isotope
data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.
It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air
CO
2
measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown
that carbon cycle modelling based on non-
equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and
chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-
linear ocean evasion
"buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-
conceived idea, constitute a circular argument
and with no scientific validity.
Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO
2
residence
time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO
2
in the atmosphere is
maximum 4%. Any CO
2
level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural,
carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-
C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool,
namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior.
The apparent annual atmospheric CO
2
level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic,
would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO
2
exchanged naturally
between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more
probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO
2
would be caused by natural
fluctuations of geophysical processes.
Page
1
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
13-C/12-
C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time
of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO
2
mass) to fit its
measured 13-C/12-
C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial
50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-
tonnes carbon
annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model. When such rejection has not
yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle.
IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a
rejectable non-
realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of
carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it.
1. Introduction
The atmospheric CO
2
is as important as oxygen for life on Earth. Without CO
2
the plant
photosynthetic metabolism would not be possible, and the present life-
forms on Earth would
vanish. Over the last years it has been constructed a dogma that an apparent increase in
atmospheric CO
2
concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil carbon in the
forms of petroleum, coal, and natural gas. This extra atmospheric CO
2
has been claimed to
cause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5°C in
the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990).
There is then indeed a paradox that CO
2
, "The Gas of Life", is now being condemned as the
evil "polluting" gas, a gas which will be a threat to people's living on Earth, through a postulated
"Global Warming". Even more so when earlier warmer periods in the Earth's history have been
characterized as "Climatic Optimum". The construction of the "CO
2
Greenhouse Effect Doom"
dogma, based on atmospheric CO
2
level measurements in air and
ice cores, carbon cycle
modelling, CO
2
residence time (lifetime is here used synonymously), and carbon isotopes, is
here examined, and the dogma is rejected on geochemical grounds.
2. The construction of dogmas
In natural sciences the scientific method is based on the testing of hypotheses with the help of
(1) empiric observations, (2) laboratory experiments, and (3) theory based on these. If these
three parts give identical results, and the theory also is so robust that it will predict future results
which will be identical to new observations and experiments, we have found a hypothesis with
high significance. With further testing this hypothesis can be exalted to a law of nature, which in
turn can be used to reject other hypotheses not supported by observations and experiments. It
is of course fundamental that all three major parts of the scientific method is based on sound
statistical procedures regarding sampling theory, data representation, significance, error
propagation, causality, etc., and should be unbiased and free of advocacy. If any parts of the
evidence does not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be rejected (Churchman,
1948).
Over the last years, mainly after the fall of the communism, environmentalism seems to have
taken the vacant place on the political scene. This new "ism" alleges that Man is destructive,
Page
2
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
unnatural, evil, and guilty of destructing the environment on this planet. The "proofs" used in this
respect are based on selected portions of science, in many cases not based on the objectivity
of the scientific method of natural sciences (Sanford, 1992).
Rather the "proofs" concert rejection of reason, and are based on the scientific method of
philosophy, where the fundamental 3 parts of the scientific method of natural sciences do not
apply. In natural sciences knowledge is obtained by validating the content of one's mind
according to the facts of reality. Truth then corresponds to reality. In philosophy the world is
artificial, and truth is redefined to mean coherence among ideas, along the views of the
philosopher Immanuel Kant. Hence a dogma can be constructed by ignoring reality, and rather
appealing to authority or consensus as invalid substitutes for reason. In philosophy hypotheses
can be proposed, validated, and accepted without reference to facts (Sanford, 1992). We see
that most often the treatment of what is normal or natural is lacking from the environmental
"dooms", and that we only are told what is "abnormal" or "unnatural" without an indisputable
baseline reference.
To construct a dogma the methodology is to start with an idea one feels correct and then
finding evidence to support it. Reason will then have to be substituted by intuition, belief, faith,
emotions, or feelings as the ultimate source of knowledge. Sanford (1992) further points out that
the "ecosopher" Arne Næss (1990) begins a book with the section
"Beginning with intuitions"
and a feeling of "our world in crisis"
. The dogma will be accepted as truth by the people at large
if it will be supported by "authorities", "experts", and well-
known important people, not
necessarily with their expertise in the relevant field; and especially so if the dogma is being
supported by international bodies or assemblies, and given a wide and one-
sided coverage by
the media. The dogma will be even more appealing if it appears as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The marketing and influence, i.e. the psychology of persuasion of a dogma, will therefore be
important for it to be accepted as truth. The greater the number of people who find any idea
correct, the more the idea will appear to be correct among people. People are usually not able
to use all relevant information available. They use instead only a single, highly representative
piece of the relevant information. When something is presented as a scary scenario, it creates
an emotional reaction that makes it difficult to think straight (i.e. consider all facts), especially if
there has been created a belief that decisions regarding a common crisis will have to be made
fast (Cialdini, 1993). This is what has been called the "scare-them-to-death"
approach
(Böttcher, 1996), and makes the foundation for creating a doomsday dogma. Stephen
Schneider, a climatologist and leading proponent of the global warming theory, says:
"To
capture the public imagination ... we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified
dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have"
, thereby acting as an
advocate for his subjective belief in the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rather than
as an objective scientist (Sanford, 1992).
A doomsday dogma made under these conditions will very likely cause a political turmoil.
The old saying "Everybody talks about the weather, and nobody does anything about it"
is
claimed to be invalid when Man's burning of fossil fuel allegedly will change the world's
climates. The creation of a "CO
2
Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma will easily give more power
and money to politicians and people at power, letting them introduce legislation and taxation on
energy consumption and people's way of living by implementing policies infringing on people's
technology, industry, and freedom.
Page
3
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
3. The foundation of the CO
2
dogma
-
early atmospheric CO
2
measurements
In order to construct a "CO
2
Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma, it will be necessary to justify that
(1) pre-industrial atmospheric CO
2
was lower than today, (2) atmospheric CO
2
has steadily
risen from its pre-
industrial level to today's level, (3) Man's burning of fossil fuel is causing an
increase in atmospheric CO
2
level, (4) hence atmospheric CO
2
must have a long residence
time (lifetime), and (5) atmospheric temperatures are increasing due to Man's burning of fossil
fuel.
Callendar (1938) revived the hypothesis of "Greenhouse Warming" due to Man's activity,
proposed by Arrhenius (1896). Callendar may truly be regarded as the father of the current
dogma on man-
induced global warming (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). In order to support his
hypothesis, Callendar (1940, 1958) selected atmospheric CO
2
data from the 19th and 20th
centuries. Fonselius et al. (1956) showed that the raw data ranged randomly between about
250 and 550 ppmv (parts per million by volume) during this time period, but by selecting the
data carefully Callendar was able to present a steadily rising trend from about 290 ppmv for the
period 1866 - 1900, to 325 ppmv in 1956.
Callendar was strongly criticized by Slocum (1955), who pointed out a strong bias in
Callendar's data selection method. Slocum pointed out that it was statistically impossible to find
a trend in the raw data set, and that the total data set showed a constant average of about 335
ppmv over this period from the 19th to the 20th century. Bray (1959) also criticized the selection
method of Callendar, who rejected values 10% or more different from the "general average"
,
and even more so when Callendar's "general average" was neither defined nor given.
Note that Callendar (1940) wrote: "There is, of course, no danger that the amount of CO
2
in
the air will become uncomfortably large because as soon as the excess pressure in the air
becomes appreciable, say about 0.0003 atmos., the sea will be able to absorb this gas as fast
as it is likely to be produced."
Callendar (1949) repeated this fact, but went on to say:
"As the deep waters of the sea move
slowly and only shallow contact surface is involved in the carbon-
dioxide equilibrium, this
reservoir does not immediately control a sudden eruption of the gas such as has occurred this
century. It will be hundreds or perhaps thousands of years before the sea absorbs its fair
share." Callendar believed that nearly all the CO
2
produced by fossil fuel combustion has
remained in the atmosphere. He suggested that the increase in atmospheric CO
2
may account
for the observed slight rise in average temperature in northern latitudes during the recent
decades.
The "CO
2
Greenhouse Effect Doom" was being substantiated by Revelle & Suess (1957)
who wrote:
"Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a
kind which could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few
centuries we are returning to the air and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored over
hundreds of millions of years." But by considering the chemical facts on the exchange of CO
2
between the atmosphere and the ocean, they concluded that only a total increase of 20 to 40%
in atmospheric CO
2
can be anticipated by burning all fossil fuel. This is comparable to the 20%
increase calculated by Segalstad from the air/sea CO
2
partition coefficient given by chemical
Page
4
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
equilibrium constants (Segalstad, 1996).
At the same time Craig (1957) pointed out from the natural (by cosmic rays) radiocarbon (14-
C) production rate that atmospheric CO
2
is in active exchange with very large CO
2
reservoirs in
the ocean and biosphere. However, Callendar (1958) had apparently more faith in his carefully
selected CO
2
data, because he commented Craig's conclusion by writing:
"Thus, if the increase
shown by the measurements discussed here is even approximately representative of the whole
atmosphere, it means that the oceans have not been accepting additional CO
2
on anything like
the expected scale."
4. The building of the dogma - recent atmospheric CO
2
measurements
The stir around the atmospheric CO
2
data selected by Callendar made it necessary to start
compiling analytical data of contemporary atmospheric CO
2
. 19 North-
European stations
measured atmospheric CO
2
over a 5 year period from 1955 to 1959. Measuring with a wet-
chemical technique the atmospheric CO
2
level was found to vary between approximately 270
and 380 ppmv, with annual means of 315 -
331 ppmv, and there was no tendency of rising or
falling atmospheric CO
2
level at any of the 19 stations during this 5 year period (Bischof, 1960).
The data are particularly important because they are unselected and therefore free of potential
biases from selection procedures, unlike the CO
2
measurements based on the procedures at
Mauna Loa (see below). Note that these measurements were taken in an industrial region, and
would indeed have shown an increase in CO
2
levels if increasing amounts of anthropogenic
CO
2
were accumulating in the atmosphere during this period.
During the same period atmospheric CO
2
measurements were started near the top of the
strongly CO
2
-
emitting (e.g., Ryan, 1995) Hawaiian Mauna Loa volcano. The reason for the
choice of location was that it should be far away from CO
2
-
emitting industrial areas. At the
Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-
red (IR) absorbing
instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique
has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski
et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the
measurements were "edited"
(Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected,
leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling,
1965).
The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the Mauna
Loa CO
2
monitoring program started: "The Scripps program to monitor CO
2
in the atmosphere
and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was director of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in progress. Revelle foresaw the
geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO
2
resulting from fossil fuel combustion,
and he sought means to ensure that this 'large scale geophysical experiment', as he termed it,
would be adequately documented as it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle
was mentor, consultant, antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science
and appreciation for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep
Page
5
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept."
Is this the description of
true, unbiased research?
The annual mean CO
2
level as reported from Mauna Loa for 1959 was 315.83 ppmv (15
ppmv lower than the contemporaneous North-
European average level), reportedly rising
steadily to 351.45 in January 1989 (Keeling et al., 1989), by averaging large daily and seasonal
variations (the significance of all their digits not justified), but still within the range of the North
European measurements 30-35 years earlier. Hence a rise in global atmospheric CO
2
level has
not yet been significantly justified by validated methods and sound statistics.
5. Setting the dogma baseline - CO
2
measurements in ice cores
In order to show that recent atmospheric CO
2
levels have risen due to Man's burning of fossil
fuel, it was necessary to show a significant level increase above pre-industrial CO
2
levels. We
saw how Callendar was able to set a baseline of about 290 ppmv by rejecting values deviating
more than 10% from his desired value.
It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the contemporaneous
atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that the CO
2
content of air
inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal paleoatmospheric CO
2
levels. Jaworowski et
al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO
2
data available, finding that CO
2
levels ranged from 140 to
7,400 ppmv. However, such paleoatmospheric CO
2
levels published after 1985 were never
reported to be higher than 330 ppmv. Analyses reported in 1982 (Neftel at al., 1982) from the
more than 2,000 m deep Byrd ice core (Antarctica), showing unsystematic values from about
190 to 420 ppmv, were falsely "filtered" when the alleged same data showed a rising trend from
about 190 ppmv at 35,000 years ago to about 290 ppmv (Callendar's pre-
industrial baseline) at
4,000 years ago when re-
reported in 1988 (Neftel et al., 1988); shown by Jaworowski et al.
(1992 b) in their Fig. 5.
Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987) were going to make
"model calculations that are based on
the assumption that the atmospheric [CO
2
] increase is due to fossil CO
2
input"
and other
human activities. For this modelling they constructed a composite diagram of CO
2
level data
from Mauna Loa and the Siple (Antarctica) core (see Jaworowski et al., 1992 b, Fig. 10). The
data from the Siple core (Neftel et al., 1985) showed the "best" data in terms of a rising CO
2
trend. Part of the reason for this was that the core partially melted across the Equator during
transportation before it was analysed (Etheridge et al., 1988), but this was neither mentioned by
the analysts nor the researchers later using the data (see Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). Rather it
was characterized as
"the excellent quality of the ice core" and its CO
2
concentration data
"are
assumed to represent the global mean concentration history and used as input data to the
model" (Siegenthaler & Oeschger, 1987). The two CO
2
level curves were constructed to
overlap each other, but they would not match at corresponding age.
In order to make a matching construction between the two age-different non-
overlapping
curves, it was necessary to make the assumption that the age of the gas inclusion air would
have to be 95 years younger than the age of the enclosing ice. But this was not mentioned by
Page
6
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
the originators Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987). This artificial construction has been used as a
basis for numerous speculative models of changes in the global carbon cycle.
Oeschger et al. (1985) postulated this "air younger than enclosing ice" thesis from an
explanation that the upper 70 m of the ice sheets should be open to air circulation until the gas
cavities were sealed. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) rejected this postulate on the basis that air is
constantly driven out of the snow, firn, and ice strata during the snow to ice compression and
metamorphism, so that ice deeper than about 1,000 m will have lost all original air inclusions.
Deep ice cores will fracture when they are taken to the surface, and ambient air will be trapped
in new, secondary inclusions. Both argon-39 and krypton-
85 isotopes show that large amounts
of ambient air are indeed included in the air inclusions in deep ice cores, and air from the
inclusions will not be representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b).
Contamination from drilling fluids and more than twenty physical-
chemical processes
occurring in the ice before, during, and after drilling, make ice cores unsuitable for
paleoatmospheric work (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b).
The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly
representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO
2
levels below
200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 years BP (Barnola
et al., 1987). "Most geochemists were convinced that changes such as these could not occur"
,
says Sarmiento (1991) about these low alleged paleoatmospheric CO
2
levels. Such low
atmospheric CO
2
levels below approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to
extinction of certain plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing
clearly that the ice core CO
2
results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et
al., 1992 b), hence the CO
2
-ice-core-method and its results must be rejected.
6. Justifying the dogma - carbon cycle modelling vs. reality
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses "carbon cycle modelling"
as part
of one of their 3 evidences that the observed atmospheric CO
2
increase is indeed
anthropogenic (Houghton et al., 1990; page 14, Section 1.2.5 called
"Evidence that the
contemporary carbon dioxide increase in anthropogenic", last sentence:
"qualitatively consistent
with results from carbon cycle modelling").
The present chairman of IPCC, Bert Bolin, entered the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming"
scene with his Bolin & Eriksson (1959) paper. Here they expand on the belief of Callendar
(1958) that his apparent atmospheric CO
2
increase must be anthropogenic, and that the reason
for this is that the ocean is not dissolving the atmospheric CO
2
which the chemical laws (cf.
Henry's Law) say it should.
Bolin & Eriksson (1959) correctly state: "First we see that if the partial pressure of CO
2
varies and the hydrogen ion concentration were kept constant, the relative changes would be
the same in the sea as in the atmosphere. As the total amount of CO
2
in the sea is about 50
times that in the air, practically all excess CO
2
delivered to the atmosphere would be taken up
by the sea when equilibrium has been established."
They further cite Revelle & Suess (1957)
Page
7
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
that: "most of the CO
2
due to combustion has been transferred into the ocean and that a net
increase of CO
2
in the atmosphere of only a few percent has actually occurred. Callendar's
deduction has therefore been rejected"
. They also accept an atmospheric lifetime of about 5
years. This is all in accordance with the laws of chemistry and the carbon isotope ratios of the
atmospheric CO
2
(Segalstad, 1996).
Such a situation would not fit the heavily criticized atmospheric CO
2
level rise constructed by
Callendar (1958) as characterized by Bolin & Eriksson (1959) as:
"deduced from a careful
survey of all available measurements"
. Bolin & Eriksson (1959) goes on to model an ocean
without its primary chemical buffer agent calcium carbonate and without organic matter (like all
later carbon cycle modellers also have done). They further cite from the discussion of Revelle &
Suess (1957) that the sea could have a "buffer" factor:
"a buffer mechanism acting in such a
way that a 10% increase of the CO
2
-
content of the atmosphere need merely be balanced by an
increase of about 1% of the total CO
2
content in sea water to reach a new equilibrium". . . . "The
low buffering capacity of the sea mentioned by Revelle and Suess is due to a change in the
dissociation equilibrium between CO
2
and H
2
CO
3
on one hand and HCO
3
[-]
and CO
3
[2-]
ions on
the other."
They neglect, however, the conclusion from the discussion by Revelle & Suess (1957, page
25): "It seems therefore quite improbable that an increase in the atmospheric CO
2
concentration of as much as 10% could have been caused by industrial fuel combustion during
the past century, as Callendar's statistical analyses indicate."
It is appropriate as this point to add that if Bolin & Eriksson's conditions in the last paragraph
were true, carbonated beer (Bohren, 1987) and soda "pop" as we know it would be an
impossibility with their "buffer" factor (see below); rain and fresh water would not show the
observed equilibrium pH of 5.7 (Krauskopf, 1979); and experiments would not had shown
complete isotopic equilibrium between CO
2
and water in just hours, which in turn is the
prerequisite for routine stable isotope analysis involving CO
2
(Gonfiantini, 1981).
Experimentally it has been found that CO
2
and pure water at 25 degrees C reaches 99%
isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave agitation) 99%
equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO
2
in the
air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about 0.00001 molal at
25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan,
1970). At the same temperature, at pH-values between 7 and 9, CO
2
reaches 99% chemical
equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996).
Carbonated beer, soda "pop", and champagne are good analogues to the CO
2
distribution
between atmosphere and ocean. In both cases they manifest the equilibrium governed by
Henry's Law: the partial pressure of CO
2
in the air will be proportional to the concentration of
CO
2
dissolved in water. The proportional constant is the Henry's Law Constant, giving us a
partition coefficient for CO
2
between air and water of approximately 1:50 (Revelle & Suess,
1957; Skirrow, 1975; Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Segalstad, 1996). We have all experienced that
carbonated drinks contain much more (about 50 times higher concentration) CO
2
than the air
Page
8
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
under the bottle cap above the carbonated water. This fact is in harsh contradiction to the Bolin
& Eriksson's "buffer" factor claim that the air will contain much more CO
2
than the carbonated
water, when trying to increase the partial pressure of CO
2
from the assumed pre-
industrial level
of 290 ppmv (pressure less than 0.0003 atmospheres) to a pressure of about 3 atmospheres in
the CO
2
above the carbonated water in the brewed drink bottle.
Bolin & Eriksson's "buffer" factor would give about 10 times higher CO
2
concentration in air
vs. sea water at about 0.0003 atmospheres CO
2
partial pressure, increasing dramatically to an
air/water CO
2
partition coefficient of about 50:1 at a CO
2
partial pressure of about 0.003
atmospheres (10 times the assumed pre-
industrial level; Bacastow & Keeling, 1973; see
Section 7 below for more on the "buffer" factor).
From their untenable conditions Bolin & Eriksson state: "It is obvious that an addition of CO
2
to the atmosphere will only slightly change the CO
2
content of the sea but appreciably effect the
CO
2
content of the atmosphere." . . . "The decisive factor is instead the rate of overturning of
the deep sea." From:
"the fact that the top layer of the ocean only need to absorb a small
amount of CO
2
from the atmosphere", and a CO
2
lifetime of 500 years for the deep ocean,
Bolin & Eriksson (1959) reach the conclusion that:
"an increase of the atmosphere's content of
CO
2
of about 10 percent would have occurred in 1954. This value compares very favourably
with the value of 10% given by Callendar (1958) as the total increase until 1955 deduced from a
careful survey of all available measurements." By over-
simplifying the properties of the ocean
the authors were able to construct a non-
equilibrium model remote from observed reality and
chemical laws, fitting the non-representative data of Callendar (1958).
At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top
layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC
(particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-
tonnes; some 130% of the
atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-
10 years. This alone would consume all
possible man-made CO
2
from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200 giga-
tonnes) if burned
during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-
ocean pool of
POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-
14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990;
see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a). The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing
to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO
2
and the
"Greenhouse Effect", because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year
(Toggweiler, 1990).
7. Boost for the dogma - the evasion "buffer" factor
Bacastow & Keeling (1973) elaborate further on Bolin & Eriksson's ocean "buffer" factor, calling
it an "evasion factor" (also called the "Revelle factor"
; Keeling & Bacastow, 1977), because the
"buffer" factor is not related to a buffer in the chemical sense. A real buffer can namely be
defined as a reaction system which modifies or controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass
independent) thermodynamic variable (pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). The
carbonate system in the sea will act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H
2
CO
3
)
and a salt of the acid (CaCO
3
). The concentration of CO
2
(g) in the atmosphere and of Ca
2+
Page
9
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
(aq)
in the ocean will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of
CaCO
3
at a given temperature (Segalstad, 1996).
Bacastow & Keeling (1973) show their calculated evasion factors for average ocean surface
water as a function of
"the partial pressure of CO
2
exerted by the ocean surface water, P
m
, and
the total inorganic carbon in the water", here designated C
total
, relative to the respective values
they assumed for preindustrial times. The evasion factor is constructed such that:
"if industrial
CO
2
production continues to increase, however, the evasion factor will rise with P
m
according to
the relation shown in Fig. 3. At the same time the short-
term capacity of the oceans to absorb
CO
2
from the atmosphere will diminish"
(Bacastow & Keeling, 1973). The evasion "buffer" factor
is defined as
[
( P
m
- P
m,o
) / P
m,o
] / [
( C
total
- C
total,o
) / C
total,o
]
at constant sea water alkalinity. P
m,o
and C
total,o
are "preindustrial values" of P
m
and C
total
,
respectively (Bacastow & Keeling, 1973). Slightly different definitions are used in various
contexts (Kohlmaier, 1979). We clearly see that this evasion "buffer" factor is ideologically
defined from an assumed model (atmospheric anthropogenic CO
2
increase) and an assumed
pre-industrial value for the CO
2
level. These assumed pre-
industrial values are calculated by an
iteration technique (Bacastow, 1981) from so-called "apparent dissociation constants"
,
established from empiric measurements at sea, but showing considerable variation between
different authors (Takahashi et al., 1976).
"There continues to be considerable uncertainty as to
the magnitude of the gas exchange coefficient in the ocean"
, says Sarmiento (1991). The
ideologically constructed non-
linear evasion "buffer" factor or "Revelle factor" is later referred to
as if it was established as a law of nature: "known from thermodynamic data"
(Keeling &
Bacastow, 1977); a gross exaggeration, giving a false scientific credibility to the method and the
results from carbon cycle modelling using this "buffer" factor.
This is a beautiful example of circular logic in action, when such a construction as the
evasion factor is used in all carbon cycle models which the IPCC base their anthropogenic CO
2
-
level-
rise evidence on. Using the evasion "buffer" factor instead of the chemical Henry's Law will
always explain any CO
2
level rise as being anthropogenic, because that very idea was the
basis for the construction of the evasion "buffer" correction factor.
The results of carbon cycle modelling using the evasion "buffer" factor is shown in Table 1.
Some go even further: according to Revelle & Munk (1977)
"the atmospheric carbon dioxide
content could rise to about 5 times the preindustrial value in the early part of the twenty-
second
century", i.e. in slightly more than 100 years from now.
After 1000 GT After 6000 GT
_______________ _______________
Pre-in-
dustrial Content % in- Content % in-
content (GT) crease (GT) crease
Atmosphere
700
840
20
1880
170
Page
10
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Terrestrial system 3000 3110 4 3655 22
Ocean surface layer 1000 1020 2 1115 12
Deep ocean 35000 35730 2 39050 12
Table 1. Carbon contents in giga-tonnes (GT) for a four-reservoir non-linear non-
equilibrium
model during the assumed initial pre-
industrial situation, after the introduction of 1,000 GT
carbon, and after the introduction of 6,000 GT carbon in the form of CO
2
to the atmosphere,
using an ideological evasion "buffer" correction factor of about 9. The first introduction
corresponds to the total input from fossil fuel up to about the year 2000; the second is roughly
equal to the known accessible reserves of fossil carbon. After Rodhe (1992).
In linear systems the fluxes between the reservoirs are linearly related to the reservoir
contents, like in chemical equilibrium systems. In non-linear modelling, non-
equilibrium complex
relations are assumed, like for "logistical growth" models. The results after introduction of
carbon to the atmosphere in Table 1 is from a simplified non-linear (non-chemical-
equilibrium)
non-
steady state carbon cycle model with no calcium carbonate and no sea organics. The
ideological evasion "buffer" correction factor is set at about 9. As a consequence of this factor a
substantial increase in atmospheric CO
2
from introduction of a certain amount of fossil carbon is
mathematically balanced by a small increase in carbon in the sea layers. We see that the non-
linear relations introduced in these current carbon cycle models give rise to substantial
calculated variations between the reservoirs. The atmospheric reservoir is in such simplified
non-
realistic models much more perturbed than any of the other reservoirs (Rodhe, 1992). If
this mechanism were true, it would be impossible for breweries to put their CO
2
in beer or soda
"pop".
The non-
linear modelling results in Table 1 have been made to explain the apparent rise in
atmospheric CO
2
today of 20% (vs. an assumed pre-
industrial level) from fossil fuel burning by
default, and predict a 170% increase in CO
2
when we have burned all our fossil fuel. The sea
would in these models only see a maximum rise in CO
2
of 12%.
Holmén (1992) emphasizes that such
"box models and box diffusion models have very few
degrees of freedom and they must describe physical, chemical, and biological processes very
crudely. They are based on empirical relations rather than on first principles."
8. Trouble for the dogma - the CO
2
"missing sink"
The next problem is that the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO
2
level increase only accounts for
approximately 50% of the expected increase from looking at the amount of CO
2
formed from
production data for the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., Kerr, 1992). This annual discrepancy of
some 3 giga-tonnes of carbon is in the literature called "the missing sink"
(analogous to "the
missing link"; Holmén, 1992). When trying to find this "missing sink" in the biosphere, carbon
cycle modelling has shown that deforestation must have contributed a large amount of CO
2
to
the atmosphere. So instead of finding "the missing sink" in the terrestrial biosphere, they find
another CO
2
source! This makes "the missing sink" problem yet more severe.
Page
11
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Trabalka (1985) summarizes the status of carbon cycle modelling and its missing sinks
(Trabalka et al., 1985) by:
"As a first approximation in the validation of models, it should be
possible to compute a balanced global carbon budget for the contemporary period; to date this
has not been achievable and the reasons are still uncertain." . . . "These models produce
estimates of past atmospheric CO
2
levels that are inconsistent with the historical atmospheric
CO
2
increase. This inconsistency implies that significant errors in projections are possible using
current carbon cycle models."
Bolin's (1986) conclusion regarding carbon cycle models is on the contrary:
"We understand
the basic features of the global carbon cycle quite well. It has been possible to construct
quantitative models which can be used as a general guide for the projection of future CO
2
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of given emission scenarios"
. This is in high
contrast to Holmén (1992), who concludes his book chapter on "The Global Carbon Cycle" with:
"obviously our knowledge of the global cycle of carbon is inadequate to get ends to meet".
A 50% error, i.e. the enormous amount of about 3 giga-
tonnes of carbon annually not
explained by a model, would normally lead to complete rejection of the model and its hypothesis
using the scientific method of natural sciences. Still the 50% inexplicable error in the IPCC
argumentation has strangely enough not yet caused all governments to reject the IPCC model.
This fact beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" principle (Section 2 above).
9. Problems for the dogma - CO
2
residence time
A number of lifetimes and timescales are being used in both scientific and policy context to
describe the behavior of heat-
absorbing gases in the atmosphere. These concepts are very
important for the discussion on whether anthropogenic CO
2
will be accumulated in the
atmosphere and exert an additional global "Greenhouse Effect" warming. If each CO
2
molecule
in the atmosphere has a short lifetime, it means that the CO
2
molecules will be removed fast
from the atmosphere to be absorbed in another reservoir.
A number of definitions for lifetimes of atmospheric CO
2
has been introduced, like
"residence time", "transit time", "response time", "e-
folding time", "turnover time", "adjustment
time", and more varieties of these (e.g., Rodhe, 1992; O'Neill et al., 1994; Rodhe & Björkström,
1979), to try to explain why atmospheric CO
2
allegedly cannot have the short lifetime of
approximately 5 years which numerous measurements of different kinds show. It is being said
that because we observe the atmospheric CO
2
level increase, which apparently has not been
dissolved by the sea, the turnover time of atmospheric CO
2
"of the combined system"
must be
several hundred years (Rodhe, 1992).
IPCC defines lifetime for CO
2
as the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to a future
equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly, and gives a lifetime of 50-
200 years in
parentheses (Houghton et al., 1990). Their footnote No. 4 to their Table 1.1 explains:
"For each
gas in the table, except CO
2
, the "lifetime" is defined here as the ratio of the atmospheric
content to the total rate of removal. This time scale also characterizes the rate of adjustment of
Page
12
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
the atmospheric concentrations if the emission rates are changed abruptly. CO
2
is a special
case since it has no real sinks, but is merely circulated between various reservoirs
(atmosphere, ocean, biota). The "lifetime" of CO
2
given in the table is a rough indication of the
time it would take for the CO
2
concentration to adjust to changes in the emissions . . .".
O'Neill et al. (1994) criticize the IPCC report (Houghton et al., 1990) because it
"offers no
rigorous definition of lifetime; for the purpose of defining Global Warming Potentials, it instead
presents integrations of impulse
-
response functions over several finite time intervals. Each of
these estimates has its own strengths and weaknesses. Taken together, however, they create
confusion over what "lifetime" means, how to calculate it, and how it relates to other
timescales." IPCC's assertion that CO
2
has no real sinks, have been rejected elsewhere
(Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Segalstad, 1996).
The atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime; turnover time) of CO
2
has been quantified
based on measurements of natural radiocarbon (carbon-
14) levels in the atmosphere and the
ocean surface; the changes in those levels caused by anthropogenic effects, like "bomb
carbon-
14" added to the atmosphere by nuclear explosions; and the "Suess Effect" caused by
the addition of old carbon-14-free CO
2
from combustion of fossil fuels; and the application of
gas exchange theory to rates determined for the inert radioactive gas radon-
222. The results
from these measurements are shown in Table 2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist
(1985), in addition to the solubility data of Murray (1992), and the carbon-13/carbon-12 mass-
balance calculation of Segalstad (1992). Both of the last two recent methods happened to give
a lifetime of 5.4 years based on completely different methods.
Authors [publication year]
Residence time (years)
Based on natural carbon-14
Craig [1957] 7 +/- 3
Revelle & Suess [1957] 7
Arnold & Anderson [1957]
10
including living and dead biosphere
(Siegenthaler, 1989) 4-9
Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5
Bolin & Eriksson [1959] 5
Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Craig [1963] 5-15
Keeling [1973b] 7
Broecker [1974] 9.2
Oeschger et al. [1975] 6-9
Keeling [1979] 7.53
Peng et al. [1979] 7.6 (5.5-9.4)
Siegenthaler et al. [1980] 7.5
Lal & Suess [1983] 3-25
Siegenthaler [1983] 7.9-10.6
Kratz et al. [1983] 6.7
Based on Suess Effect
Ferguson [1958] 2 (1-8)
Bacastow & Keeling [1973] 6.3-7.0
Page
13
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Based on bomb carbon-14
Bien & Suess [1967] >10
Münnich & Roether [1967] 5.4
Nydal [1968] 5-10
Young & Fairhall [1968] 4-6
Rafter & O'Brian [1970] 12
Machta (1972) 2
Broecker et al. [1980a] 6.2-8.8
Stuiver [1980] 6.8
Quay & Stuiver [1980] 7.5
Delibrias [1980] 6.0
Druffel & Suess [1983] 12.5
Siegenthaler [1983] 6.99-7.54
Based on radon-222
Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Peng et al. [1979] 7.8-13.2
Peng et al. [1983] 8.4
Based on solubility data
Murray (1992) 5.4
Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance
Segalstad (1992) 5.4
Table 2. Atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime, turnover time) of CO
2
, mainly based on the
compilation by Sundquist (1985; for references in brackets).
Judged from the data of Table 2 there is apparently very little disagreement from early works
to later works regardless of measurement method, that the atmospheric CO
2
lifetime is quite
short, near 5 years. This fact was also acknowledged early by IPCC's chairman Bolin (Bolin &
Eriksson, 1959).
We should also note that a large number of the atmospheric CO
2
lifetime measurements are
based on anthropogenic additions of CO
2
to the atmosphere by "bomb carbon-
14". It is
important for the understanding of the robustness of the ocean to deal with the anthropogenic
extra CO
2
that the measured lifetimes are within the same range as for natural carbon-
14
before and after the nuclear bomb tests in the early nineteen-
sixties. They are also coincident
with lifetimes found when considering anthropogenic CO
2
from Man's burning of fossil fuel, both
from carbon-14 as well as for carbon-13/carbon-
12 isotopes. The measured lifetimes in Table 2
therefore represent the real lifetime of atmospheric CO
2
in dynamic contact with all its sources
and sinks with "perturbations" included. Hence other "lifetimes" found by non-
linear carbon
cycle modelling are irrelevant.
The short atmospheric CO
2
lifetime of 5 years means that CO
2
quickly is being taken out of
the atmospheric reservoir, and that approximately 135 giga-
tonnes (about 18%) of the
atmospheric CO
2
pool is exchanged each year. This large and fast natural CO
2
cycling flux is
Page
14
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
far more than the approximately 6 giga-tonnes of carbon in the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO
2
now contributed annually to the atmosphere, creating so much political turmoil (Segalstad,
1992; 1996).
Supporters of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma have apparently not been
satisfied with these facts based on numerous measurements and methods. They go on by
saying that because we observe the atmospheric CO
2
level increase, it must be caused by
Man's burning of fossil fuel, and the "lifetime" of atmospheric CO
2
must be 50-
200 years
(Houghton et al., 1990). Hence, they say, when we construct non-linear (non-
proportional and
non-chemical-equilibrium) non-steady-
state systems for the fluxes between the ocean surface
layer, the atmosphere, and the terrestrial system, the decay time of man-
made carbon into the
atmosphere must be much longer than the turn-
over time (Rodhe & Björkström, 1979). Because
if we now use a constructed evasion "buffer" factor (Section 5 and 6 above) of 10, the
atmospheric CO
2
"lifetime" will be 10 times the measured (real) lifetime of 5 years, namely 50
years or more (Rodhe & Björkström, 1979; Rodhe, 1992).
To rephrase; an apparent atmospheric CO
2
level rise, assumed to be due to Man's burning
of fossil fuel, is being treated with non-linear (non-proportional and non-chemical-
equilibrium)
non-steady-
state modelling, giving theoretical far longer "lifetimes" than actually measured.
When this is not explained to the readers, they are led astray to get the impression that the
"artificial" un-real model "lifetimes" are real lifetimes.
Or as O'Neill et al. (1994) phrase it:
"A growing array of timescales are being extracted from
carbon cycle models and data and their relationships have not been clear." . . . "This
discrepancy has not been adequately explained and is causing confusion in the literature
concerned with the atmospheric "lifetime" of anthropogenic CO
2
" . . . "Considering the policy
implications of such numbers, it is important that their meanings and relationships be fully
clarified."
Rodhe & Björkström (1979) conclude their treatment of carbon cycle and CO
2
lifetime
modelling by:
"Naturally, we do not claim that such very simplified models of the carbon cycle,
which we have studied, contain the final answer to the very complex question of how nature will
distribute the man-made CO
2
emissions between the major reservoirs. That question should be
studied with the aid of much more sophisticated models which take into account more of our
knowledge about the physical and chemical processes involved."
10. The breakdown of the dogma - carbon isotopes
Suess (1955) estimated for 1953, based on the carbon-
14 "Suess Effect" (dilution of the
atmospheric CO
2
with CO
2
from burning of fossil fuel, void of carbon-14),
"that the worldwide
contamination of the Earth's atmosphere with artificial CO
2
probably amounts to less than 1
percent"
. Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated on the basis of new carbon-
14 data that the
amount of atmospheric "CO
2
derived from industrial fuel combustion"
would be 1.73% for an
atmospheric CO
2
lifetime of 7 years, and 1.2% for a CO
2
lifetime of 5 years.
This is in conflict with IPCC researchers, who assume that 21% of our present
-
day (as of
Page
15
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
December 1988) atmospheric CO
2
, the assumed rise in CO
2
level since the industrial
revolution, has been contributed from Man's burning of fossil fuel (Houghton et al., 1990).
This large contradiction between the carbon-
14 measurements and the dogma, has worried
many researchers. In order to make Suess' measurements fit the dogma, it would be necessary
to mix the atmospheric fossil-fuel CO
2
with CO
2
from a different carbon reservoir five times
larger than the atmosphere alone (Broecker et al., 1979). It was alternatively proposed that the
carbon-14-labelled CO
2
would act completely differently than the "ordinary" CO
2
:
"However, the
system's responses are not the same for the CO
2
concentration and for isotopic
ratios" (Oeschger & Siegenthaler, 1978). The explanation is given that the CO
2
levels will be
governed by the constructed evasion "buffer" correction factor, while on the other hand
(strangely enough) the isotope ratios of the atoms in the very same CO
2
molecules would be
unaffected by the evasion "buffer" factor, and further: "would be equal in both reservoirs
[the
atmosphere and the ocean's mixed layer]
at equilibrium. This explains why the relative
atmospheric CO
2
increase is larger than the Suess effect"
(Oeschger & Siegenthaler, 1978).
This cannot be accepted, when all chemical and isotopic experiments indicate that equilibrium
between CO
2
and water is obtained within a few hours (see Section 5 above).
Ratios between the carbon-13 and carbon-
12 stable isotopes are commonly expressed in
permil by a so-called delta-13-C notation being the standard-
normalized difference from the
standard, multiplied by 1000. The international standard for stable carbon isotopes is the Pee
Dee Belemnite (PDB) calcium carbonate.
CO
2
from combustion of fossil fuel and from biospheric materials have delta-13-
C values
near -26 permil. "Natural" CO
2
has delta-13-C values of -7 permil in equilibrium with CO
2
dissolved in the hydrosphere and in marine calcium carbonate. Mixing these two atmospheric
CO
2
components: IPCC's 21% CO
2
from fossil fuel burning + 79% "natural" CO
2
should give a
delta-13-C of the present atmospheric CO
2
of approximately -
11 permil, calculated by isotopic
mass balance (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).
This atmospheric CO
2
delta-13-C mixing value of -
11 permil to be expected from IPCC's
model is not found in actual measurements. Keeling et al. (1989) reported a measured
atmospheric delta-13-C value of -7.489 permil in December 1978, decreasing to -
7.807 permil
in December 1988 (the significance of all their digits not justified). These values are close to the
value of the natural atmospheric CO
2
reservoir, far from the delta-13-C value of -
11 permil
expected from the IPCC model.
From the measured delta-13-C values in atmospheric CO
2
we can by isotopic mass balance
also calculate that the amount of fossil-fuel CO
2
in the atmosphere is equal to or less than 4%,
supporting the carbon-
14 "Suess Effect" evidence. Hence the IPCC model is neither supported
by radioactive nor stable carbon isotope evidence (Segalstad, 1992; 1993; 1996).
To explain this apparent contradiction versus the IPCC model, the observed delta-13-
C
value of atmospheric CO
2
"must be affected by other heavier [i.e. with high delta-13-
C values]
carbon sources, such as is derived from the air
-
sea exchange process"
(Inoue & Sugimura,
Page
16
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
1985). One way to make this happen, would be if the isotopic exchange from air to sea were
different from the isotopic exchange from sea to air; i.e. a gross non-
equilibrium situation would
be required. Siegenthaler & Münnich (1981) were able to construct such a simple theoretical
kinetic, non-equilibrium model: "Diffusion of CO
2
into the water, which is rate limiting for mean
oceanic conditions, fractionates the carbon isotopes only little. 13-C/12-
C fractionations are
found to be -1.8 to -2.3 permil for atmosphere-to-ocean transfer, and -9.7 to -
10.2 permil for
ocean-to-atmosphere transfer."
Inoue & Sugimura (1985) attempted to verify these kinetic isotope fractionations
experimentally at three temperatures: 288.2; 296.2; and 303.2 Kelvin, versus their equilibrium
values of -8.78; -7.86; and -7.10 permil, respectively, all with uncertainty given as +/-
0.05
permil. Their reported air to sea fractionations at these temperatures were -2 +/- 3; -4 +/-
5; and
-5 +/- 7 permil, respectively. Their sea to air fractionations were found to be -10 +/- 4; -13 +/-
6;
and -12 +/-
7 permil, respectively. (Reported alpha fractionation factors and uncertainties have
here been recalculated to alpha minus one, multiplied by 1000, to get comparable fractionation
values). They conclude that the agreement is fairly good with the theoretically deduced values
of Siegenthaler & Münnich (1981). Looking at the reported uncertainties, however, the
experimental data cannot be grouped in three populations: their air-to-sea and sea-to-
air data
are not significantly different from their reported air/sea/air equilibrium value at the three
different temperatures. Hence the experimental data cannot be used as evidence for the
proposed theoretical difference in isotopic fractionation for air/sea versus sea/air CO
2
transfer
due to differences in kinetic isotope fractionation.
Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987) touch in their carbon cycle modelling, with carbon isotopes
included, on the possibility that the apparent atmospheric CO
2
level increase is due to marine
degassing instead of accumulation of anthropogenic CO
2
:
"We will also discuss the sensitivity
of the model results to uncertainties in the ice core data, to different model assumptions and to
the (unlikely) possibility that the non-fossil CO
2
was not of biospheric, but rather of marine
origin." The word "unlikely"
in parentheses is indeed their wording. Their modelling shows
ambiguously that: "as expected, the results are similar to those for the fossil-only input"
. But
their modelling shows a discrepancy with the ice core CO
2
data, in addition to:
"it is somewhat
surprising that observations and model agree for 13-C but not for 14-
C; this can, however, not
be discussed here any further"
. In their abstract, however, they conclude on the contrary:
"Calculated 13-C and 14-C time histories agree well with the observed changes."
The carbon cycle modelling of Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987) run into several problems
making their models fit all the data, leading them to write:
"One possibility is that the
assumptions underlying our results are not fully correct, i.e., that either the Siple ice core data
deviate from the true atmospheric concentration history or that the carbon cycle models used do
not yield the correct fluxes. If we dismiss these possibilities, then other carbon sinks than the
ocean seem to exist." For the lack of validity of the Siple ice core, see Section 4 above.
Based on this kind of modelling, IPCC states as part of their
"evidence that the
contemporary carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic"
(their Section 1.2.5; Houghton, 1990):
"Third, the observed isotopic trends of 13-C and 14-
C agree qualitatively with those expected
due to the CO
2
emissions from fossil fuels and the biosphere, and they are quantitatively
consistent with the results from carbon cycle modelling."
Such a correspondence is, however,
not evident to the present author.
Page
17
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Segalstad (1992; 1993; 1996) concluded from 13-C/12-
C isotope mass balance calculations,
in accordance with the 14-C data, that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO
2
is
isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-
fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile
sources from the Earth's interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO
2
budget, marine equilibration
and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more
important; and the sum of burning of fossil-
fuel and biogenic releases (4%) much less
important, than assumed (21% of atmospheric CO
2
) by the authors of the IPCC model
(Houghton et al., 1990).
The apparent annual atmospheric CO
2
level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic,
would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO
2
exchanged naturally
between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks (Section 9 above).
It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO
2
is caused by
natural fluctuations of geophysical processes. We have no database for disproving this
judgment (Trabalka, 1985). Like Brewer (1983) says it:
"Nature has vast resources with which to
fool us . . .".
Segalstad's mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric CO
2
lifetime of 50-
200
years will make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO
2
mass) to fit its measured 13-
C/12-
C ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing
sink" (Segalstad, 1996).
11. Conclusion
The atmospheric CO
2
level is ultimately determined by geologic processes. The carbon on the
Earth's surface has come from CO
2
degassing of the Earth's interior, which has released about
half of its estimated CO
2
contents throughout Earth's history during the 4,500 million years up to
now (Holland, 1984). Important geologic processes are volcanism and erosion, releasing
carbon from the lithosphere and the Earth's interior to the atmosphere - ocean -
biosphere
system. These processes are counteracted by sedimentation of carbonate and organic carbon
in the hydrosphere (mainly the ocean). The balance between these two main processes
determines the CO
2
level in the atmosphere (e.g., Kramer, 1965; McDuff & Morel, 1980; Walker
& Drever, 1988; Holmén, 1992).
"Thus, while seawater alkalinity is directly controlled by the
formation of calcium carbonate as its major sedimentary sink, it is also controlled indirectly by
carbonate metamorphism which buffers the CO
2
content of the atmosphere"
(McDuff & Morel,
1980).
In addition there is a short-term carbon cycle dominated by an exchange of CO
2
between
the atmosphere and biosphere through photosynthesis, respiration, and putrefaction (decay),
and similarly between aqueous CO
2
(including its products of hydrolysis and protolysis) and
marine organic matter (Walker & Drever, 1988).
Analogously to the transfer of anthropogenic CO
2
to the atmosphere, it seems appropriate to
cite Walker (1994): "Consider, now some perturbation of the system -
for example, the
doomsday perturbation that suddenly stops photosynthesis. In 20 years or so, all the carbon in
Page
18
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
the biota reservoir will be released to the atmosphere, leading initially to a large increase in the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But in no time at all, in terms of human
generations, that extra carbon dioxide will work its way down into the very deep sea reservoir
where the addition of 2 x 10
17
moles to the 30 x 10
17
moles already there will have little effect.
The system will not end up with a lot of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if
photosynthesis stops completely. The figure shows also the fossil fuel rate, which is smaller
than the rate of photosynthesis."
It is nature's coupling between the temporary, short-
lived atmospheric reservoir, with 0.5 x
10
17
moles CO
2
, and the relatively enormous oceanic reservoir, with 30 x 10
17
moles of
dissolved (and hydrolyzed and protolyzed) CO
2
in contact with calcium carbonate, that
determines the amount of CO
2
in the atmosphere. This coupling is in turn coupled to the much
larger lithospheric reservoir. The rates and fluxes of the latter coupling control the amount of
carbon in the surface reservoir of the Earth. All kinds of measurements show that the real
residence time of atmospheric CO
2
is about 5 years.
Chemical and isotope equilibrium considerations and the short CO
2
residence time (lifetime)
can fully explain the carbon cycle of the Earth. The conclusion of such reasoning is that any
atmospheric CO
2
level rise beyond 4% cannot be explained by accumulation of CO
2
from
Man's burning of fossil fuel. An apparent CO
2
rise can only come from a much larger, but
natural, carbon reservoir with much higher delta-13-
C than the fossil fuel pool, namely from the
ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior. CO
2
degassing from the oceans
instead of IPCC's anthropogenic accumulation is indeed made probable by the measurements
of a larger CO
2
increase in Atlantic surface waters than in the contemporaneous atmosphere
(Takahashi, 1961; 1979). Kondratyev (1988) argues that: "The fact is that the atmospheric CO
2
content may be controlled by the climate" and not the opposite.
Trabalka (1985) concluded: "The available data on past fluctuations in atmospheric CO
2
and
climate suggest that our current carbon cycle models, which emphasize human perturbations,
may be missing natural feedback components involving both terrestrial and marine systems,
perhaps even climate
-
induced "mode switches" in ocean circulation patterns, which could be
very important in understanding changes in both climate and the carbon cycle over the next
century."
Such conclusions will not make the large "doomsday" headings in the news media, will not
make the politicians implement extra taxes or legislations, will not make expensive conferences
organized by the United Nations or other international bodies, will not make environmental
organizations preach about the wickedness of Man, and will not bring any research support
money from governments or research foundations.
IPCC (Houghton et al., 1990) claims in their Section 1.2.5 three evidences that the
contemporary atmospheric CO
2
increase is anthropogenic: (1) CO
2
measurements from ice
cores show a 21% rise from 280 to 353 ppmv (parts per million by volume) since pre-
industrial
times; (2) the atmospheric CO
2
increase closely parallels the accumulated emission trends from
fossil fuel combustion and from land use changes, although the annual increase has been
smaller each year than the fossil CO
2
input [some 50% deviation, e.g. Kerr, 1992]; (3) the
Page
19
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
observed isotopic trends of 13-C and 14-
C agree qualitatively with those expected due to the
CO
2
emissions from fossil fuels and the biosphere, and they are quantitatively consistent with
results from carbon cycle modelling.
Jaworowski et al. (1992 a, 1992 b) reviewed published CO
2
measurements from ice cores,
and rejected this method because it cannot give reliable data for neither the CO
2
level history of
paleoatmospheres nor the pre-industrial atmospheric CO
2
level. The paper by Jaworowski et al.
(1992 a) and this paper have addressed recent atmospheric CO
2
measurements by a non-
validated instrumental method with results visually selected and "edited", deviating from
unselected measurements of constant CO
2
levels by the highly accurate wet-
chemical
technique at 19 stations in Northern Europe (Bischof, 1960). Hence a rise in global atmospheric
CO
2
level has not yet been significantly justified by validated methods and sound statistics.
Stable carbon isotope mass balance calculations based on 13-C/12-
C measurements prove
why IPCC's wrong model creates their inexplicable 50% "missing sink" (Segalstad, 1996).
Carbon isotopic trends agree qualitatively with fossil fuel CO
2
emissions like stated by IPCC,
but show quantitatively a fossil fuel CO
2
component of maximum 4 % versus the 21% claimed
by IPCC. This paper has further examined and rejected the carbon cycle modelling forming the
basis for IPCC evidence. It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-
equilibrium
models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-
representative data
through the use of non-linear correction "buffer" factors constructed from a pre-
conceived
hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity. IPCC's non-
realistic
carbon cycle modelling will simply refute reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda
"pop" as we know it.
The "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma is based on the hypothesis that Man's
release of CO
2
from fossil fuel burning will cause this extra atmospheric CO
2
to increase the
temperature of the lower atmosphere. It is important to note that due to the atmosphere's
extremely low heat capacity, the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere from this process
will be minute and unable to change the Earth's climate. This compared to the enormous heat
energy stored in the oceans, and the enormous heat energy required to melt the cryosphere
(ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, and glaciers). Hence it will be impossible to melt the Earth's ice
caps and thereby increase the sea level just by increasing the heat energy of the atmosphere
through a few percent of added heat absorbing anthropogenic CO
2
in the lower atmosphere
(Segalstad, 1996). Further, there exists no proof of a constantly rising trend for the temperature
of the world's lower atmosphere since the industrial revolution (e.g., Jaworowski et al., 1992 a;
Michaels & Knappenberger, 1996).
A dogma is, according to dictionaries, considered an arrogant and authoritative declaration
of opinion based on a priori principles, not on induction, and often as a sacrament or
commandment for religious belief. Review of the basis for the "Greenhouse Effect Global
Warming" doom makes its components appear neither supported by reality nor the scientific
method of natural sciences, making it rather a preconceived idea or tenet sharing most features
of a dogma.
Acknowledgements:
Drs. H.M. Seip and J.S. Fuglestvedt at "Cicero" (the Norwegian
Page
20
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
government constituted institute for climate politics) are acknowledged for discussions leading
to the strengthening and clarification of the conclusions of this paper.
References
Arrhenius, S. (1896): On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the
ground. London, Edinburgh, Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci., Ser. 5, 41, 237-276.
Bacastow, R. (1981): Numerical evaluation of the evasion factor. In: Bolin, B. (Ed.):
Carbon
cycle modelling (SCOPE 16). John Wiley & Sons, 95-101.
Bacastow, R. & Keeling, C.D. (1973): Atmospheric carbon dioxide and radiocarbon in the
natural carbon cycle: II. Changes from A.D. 1700 to 2070 as deduced from a geochemical
model. In: Woodwell, G.M. & Pecan, E.V. (Eds.): Carbon and the biosphere. CONF-
72051.
Technical Information Center, Office of Information Services, United States Atomic Energy
Commission, 86-135.
Bacastow, R., Keeling, C.D. & Whorp, T.P. (1985): Seasonal amplitude increase in atmospheric
CO
2
concentration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, 1959-1982. Journal of Geophysical Research 90,
10529-10540.
Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Korotkevich, Y.S. & Lorius, C. (1987): Vostok ice core provides
160,000-year record of atmospheric CO
2
. Nature 329, 408-414.
Bischof, W. (1960): Periodical variations of the atmospheric CO
2
-content in Scandinavia.
Tellus
12, 216-226.
Bohren, C.F. (1987): Clouds in a glass of beer: simple experiments in atmospheric physics.
Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 195 pp.
Bolin, B. (1986): How much CO
2
will remain in the atmosphere? In:
Bolin, B., Döös, B.R., Jäger,
J. & Warrick, R.A. (Eds.):
The Greenhouse Effect, climatic change, and ecosystems (SCOPE
29). John Wiley & Sons, 93-155.
Bolin, B. & Eriksson, E. (1959): Changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and
sea due to fossil fuel combustion. In: Bolin, B. (Ed.):
The atmosphere and the sea in motion.
Scientific contributions to the Rossby Memorial Volume.
The Rockefeller Institute Press, New
York, 130-142.
Page
21
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Böttcher, F. (1996): Climate change: forcing a treaty. In: Emsley, J. (Ed.):
The Global Warming
Debate. The report of the European Science and Environment Forum.
Bourne Press, Ltd.,
Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, 267-285.
Bray, J.R. (1959): An analysis of the possible recent change in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration. Tellus 11, 220-230.
Brewer, P.G. (1983): Past and future atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide; carbon
dioxide and the oceans. In: Changing climate. National Academy Press, 188-215.
Broecker, W.S., Takahashi, T., Simpson, H.J. & Peng, T.-
H. (1979): Fate of fossil fuel carbon
dioxide and the global carbon budget. Science 206, 409-418.
Callendar, G.S. (1938): The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on
temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64, 223-240.
Callendar, G.S. (1940): Variations of the amount of carbon dioxide in different air currents.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 66, 395-400.
Callendar, G.S. (1949): Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4, 310-314.
Callendar, G.S. (1958): On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10, 243-
248.
Churchman, C.W. (1948): Theory of experimental inference. Macmillan, New York, 292 pp.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993): Influence: the psychology of persuasion, 2nd. rev. ed.
William Morrow &
Co., Inc., New York, 320 pp.
Craig, H. (1957): The natural distribution of radio carbon and the exchange time of carbon
dioxide between the atmosphere and sea. Tellus 9, 1-16.
Dreybrodt, W., Lauckner, J., Zaihua, L., Svensson, U. & Buhmann, D. (1996): The kinetics of
the reaction CO
2
+ H
2
O -> H
+
+ HCO
3-
as one of the rate limiting steps for the dissolution of
calcite in the system H
2
O - CO
2
- CaCO
3
. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 60, 3375-3381.
Druffel, E.R.M. & Williams, P.M. (1990): Identification of a deep marine source of particulate
organic carbon using bomb carbon-14. Nature 347, 172-174.
Etheridge, D.M., Pearman, G.I. & de Silva, F. (1988): Atmospheric trace-
gas variations as
revealed by air trapped in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica. Annals of Glaciology 10, 28-
33.
Fonselius, S., Koroleff, F. & Warme, K.-E. (1956): Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 8,
176-183.
Gonfiantini, R. (1981): The delta-notation and the mass-
spectrometric measurement
techniques. International Atomic Agency, Technical Report Series 210, 35-84.
Page
22
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Holland, H. (1984): The chemical evolution of the atmosphere and oceans.
Princeton University
Press, 582 pp.
Holmén, K. (1992): The global carbon cycle. In:
Butcher, S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H. &
Wolfe, G.V. (Eds.): Global biogeochemical cycles. Academic Press, 239-262.
Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. & Ephraums, J.J. (Eds.) (1990):
Climate Change. The IPCC
Scientific Assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 365 pp.
Inoue, H. & Sugimura, Y. (1985): Carbon isotopic fractionation during the CO
2
exchange
process between air and sea water under equilibrium and kinetic conditions.
Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 49, 2453-2460.
Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. (1992 a): Atmospheric CO
2
and global warming: a
critical review; 2nd revised edition.
Norsk Polarinstitutt, Meddelelser [Norwegian Polar Institute,
Memoirs] 119, 76 pp.
Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Ono, N. (1992 b): Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO
2
story? Science of the Total Environment 114, 227-284.
Keeling, C.D. & Bacastow, R.B. (1977): Impact of industrial gases on climate. In:
Energy &
Climate. Studies in Geophysics, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 72-95.
Keeling, C.D., Bacastow, R.B., Carter, A.F., Piper, S.C., Whorf, T.P., Heimann, M., Mook, W.G.
& Roeloffzen, H. (1989): A three-dimensional model of atmospheric CO
2
transport based on
observed winds: 1. Analysis of observational data. In:
Peterson, D.H. (Ed.): Aspects of climate
variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas.
American Geophysical Union, Geophysical
Monograph 55, 165-236.
Kerr, R.A. (1992): Fugitive carbon dioxide: it's not hiding in the ocean. Science 256, 35.
Kohlmaier, G.H. (1979): Dynamics of the surface ocean -
deep sea carbon exchange in its
relation to the atmosphere - surface ocean exchange. In: Bolin, B. (Ed.):
Carbon cycle
modelling (SCOPE 16). John Wiley & Sons, 307-314.
Kondratyev, K.Y. (1988): Climate shocks: natural and anthropogenic.
John Wiley & Sons, 296
pp.
Kramer, J.R. (1965): History of sea water. Constant temperature-
pressure equilibrium models
compared to liquid inclusion analyses. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 29, 92-945.
Krauskopf, K.B. (1979): Introduction to geochemistry, 2nd. ed. McGraw-Hill, 617 pp.
Machta, L. (1972): The role of the oceans and biosphere in the carbon dioxide cycle.
In:
Dyrssen, D. & Jagner, D. (Eds.):
The changing chemistry of the oceans. Nobel Symposium 20.
Almquist & Wiksell / Wiley Interscience, 121
-145.
McDuff, R.E. & Morel, F.M.M. (1980): The geochemical control of seawater (Sillen revisited).
Page
23
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Environmental Science & Technology 14, 1182-1186.
McKay, CP., Toon, O.B. & Kasting, J.F. (1991): Making Mars habitable. Nature 352, 489-496.
Michaels, P.J. & Knappenberger, P.C. (1996): The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and the scientific "consensus" on global warming. In: Emsley, J. (Ed.):
The
Global Warming Debate. The report of the European Science and Environment Forum.
Bourne
Press, Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, 158-178.
Murray, J.W. (1992): The oceans. In:
Butcher, S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians, G.H. & Wolfe, G.V.
(Eds.): Global biogeochemical cycles. Academic Press, 175-211.
Næss, A. (1990): Ecology, community and lifestyle.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
223 pp.
Neftel, A., Moor, E., Oeschger, H. & Stauffer, B. (1985): Evidence from polar ice cores for the
increase in atmospheric CO
2
in the past two centuries. Nature 315, 45-47.
Neftel, A., Oeschger, H., Schwander, J., Stauffer, B. & Zumbrunn, R. (1982): Ice core sample
measurements give atmospheric CO
2
content during the past 40,000 years. Nature 295, 220-
223.
Neftel, A., Oeschger, H., Staffelbach, T. & Stauffer, B. (1988): CO
2
record in the Byrd ice core
50,000 - 5,000 years BP. Nature 331, 609 - 611.
Oeschger, H. & Siegenthaler, U. (1978): The dynamics of the carbon cycle as revealed by
isotope studies. In: Williams, J. (Ed.): Carbon dioxide, climate and society.
Pergamon Press,
45-61.
Oeschger, H., Stauffer, B., Finkel, R. & Langway, C.C., Jr. (1985): Variations of the CO
2
concentration of occluded air and of anions and dust in polar ice cores. In:
Sundquist, E.T. &
Broecker, W.S. (Eds.): The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO
2
: natural variations Archean to
present. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 32, 132-142.
O'Neill, B.C., Gaffin, S.R., Tubiello, F.N. & Oppenheimer, M. (1994): Reservoir timescales for
anthropogenic CO
2
in the atmosphere. Tellus 46 B, 378-389.
Pales, J.C. & Keeling, C.D. (1965): The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Hawaii.
Journal of Geophysical Research 70, 6053-6076.
Revelle, R. & Munk, W. (1977): The carbon dioxide cycle and the biosphere. In:
Energy &
Climate. Studies in Geophysics, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 140-158.
Revelle, R. & Suess, H. (1957): Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and
the question of an increase of atmospheric CO
2
during past decades. Tellus 9, 18-27.
Rodhe, H. (1992): Modeling biogeochemical cycles. In:
Butcher, S.S., Charlson, R.J., Orians,
G.H. & Wolfe, G.V. (Eds.):
Global biogeochemical cycles.
Academic Press, 55
-
72.
Page
24
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Rodhe, H. & Björkström, A. (1979): Some consequences of non-
proportionality between fluxes
and reservoir contents in natural systems. Tellus 31, 269-278.
Ryan, S. (1995): Quiescent outgassing of Mauna Loa Volcano 1958 - 1994. In:
Rhodes, J.M. &
Lockwood, J.P. (Eds.): Mauna Loa revealed: structure, composition, history, and hazards.
American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 92,
95-115.
Sanford, R.F. (1992): Environmentalism and the assault on reason. In: Lehr, J. (Ed.):
Rational
readings on environmental concerns. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 16-31.
Sarmiento, J.L. (1991): Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO
2
: the major uncertainties.
Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 5, 309-313.
Segalstad, T.V. (1992): The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO
2
in the atmosphere.
American
Geophysical Union, Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change, March
23-27, 1992, Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts, 25.
Segalstad, T.V. (1993): Stable isotope geochemistry applied to paleoclimatological and
greenhouse gas problems. 1st International Symposium on Applied Isotope Geochemistry (AIG-
1), Aug. 29 -
Sept. 3, 1993, Geiranger, Norway. Program and Abstracts, Institute for Energy
Research IFE/KR/E-93/007, 95-96.
Segalstad, T.V. (1996): The distribution of CO
2
between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and
lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO
2
on the global "Greenhouse Effect".
In:
Emsley, J. (Ed.):
The Global Warming Debate. The report of the European Science and
Environment Forum. Bourne Press, Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, 41-50.
Siegenthaler, U. (1989): Carbon-14 in the oceans. In: Fritz, P. & Fontes, J.C. (Eds.):
Handbook
of environmental isotope geochemistry, 3 A. Elsevier, 75-136.
Siegenthaler, U. & Münnich, K.O. (1981): 13-C/12-C fractionation during CO
2
transfer from air
to sea. In: Bolin, B. (Ed.): Carbon cycle modelling (SCOPE 16). John Wiley & Sons, 249-257.
Siegenthaler, U. & Oeschger, H. (1987): Biospheric CO
2
emissions during the past 200 years
reconstructed by deconvolution of ice core data. Tellus 39 B, 140 - 154.
Skirrow, G. (1975): The dissolved gases - carbon dioxide. In
Riley, J.P. & Skirrow, G. (Eds.):
Chemical oceanography, Vol. 2; 2nd edition. Academic Press, 1-192.
Slocum, G. (1955): Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly
since the beginning of the twentieth century? Monthly Weather Review, October, 225-231.
Stumm, W. & Morgan, J.J. (1970):
Aquatic chemistry: an introduction emphasizing chemical
equilibria in natural waters. Wiley-Interscience, 583 pp.
Suess, H. E. (1955): Radiocarbon concentration in modern wood. Science 122, 415-417.
Page
25
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Sundquist, E.T. (1985): Geological perspectives on carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle.
In:
Sundquist, E.T. & Broecker, W.S. (Eds.): The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO
2
: natural
variations Archean to present. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 32, 5-59.
Takahashi, T. (1961): Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in Atlantic ocean water.
Journal of
Geophysical Research 66, 477-494.
Takahashi, T. (1979): Carbon dioxide chemistry in ocean water. In:
Elliott, W.P. & Machta, L.
(Eds.):
Carbon dioxide effects research and assessment program: workshop on the global
effects of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, 63-71.
Takahashi, T., Kaiteris, P., Broecker, W.S. & Bainbridge, A.E. (1976): An evaluation of the
apparent dissociation constants of carbonic acid in seawater.
Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 32, 458-467.
Toggweiler, J.R. (1990): Bombs and ocean carbon cycles. Nature 347, 122-123.
Trabalka, J.R. (Ed.) (1985): Executive summary.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the global
carbon cycle. United States Department of Energy, DOE/ER-0239, xv-xxiii.
Trabalka, J.R., Edmonds, J.A., Reilly, J., Gardner, R.H. & Voorhees, L.D. (1985): Human
alterations of the global carbon cycle and the projected future. In:
Trabalka, J.R. (Ed.):
Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the global carbon cycle.
United States Department of Energy,
DOE/ER-0239, 247-287.
Walker, J.C.G. (1994): Global geochemical cycles of carbon. In:
Tolbert, N.E. & Preiss, J.
(Eds.): Regulation of atmospheric CO
2
and O
2
by photosynthetic carbon metabolism.
Oxford
University Press, 75-89.
Walker, J.C.G. & Drever, J.I. (1988): Geochemical cycles of atmospheric gases. In:
Gregor,
C.B., Garrels, R.M., Mackenzie, F.T. & Maynard, J.B. (Eds.):
Chemical cycles in the evolution of
the Earth. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 55-76.
Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad
Born in Norway in 1949. University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University
of Oslo. Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry,
mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the
University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA. At present keeping a
professional position as Associate Professor of Geochemistry at the University of Oslo, with
responsibility for stable isotope geochemistry. He is past head of the Mineralogical-
Geological
Museum at the University of Oslo; and past Director of the Natural History Museums and
Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo. He is a member of different international and
Page
26
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
national professional working groups and committees.
Oslo, July 1997
Printed in:
Bate, R. (Ed.): “Global Warming: The Continuing Debate"
, European Science and
Environment Forum (ESEF), Cambridge, England (ISBN 0-9527734-2-2), pages 184-
219,
1998.
Printing errors in the ESEF Vol. 1 paper:
Segalstad, T.V. (1996): The distribution of CO
2
between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and
lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO
2
on the global "Greenhouse Effect".
In:
Emsley, J. (Ed.):
The Global Warming Debate. The report of the European Science and
Environment Forum. Bourne Press, Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, 41-50.
Page 45, line 4 should read:
controls the value of an intensive (= mass independent)
thermodynamic variable (pressure,
Page 45, 7th last line should read: and a calcium silicate + CO
2
⇋ calcium carbonate + SiO
2
buffer
Page
27
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Page 45, 5th and 4th last lines should read:
"security net" underlying the most important buffer:
CO
2
(g) ⇋ HCO
3
-
(aq) ⇋ CaCO
3
(s). All together these buffers, in principle, add
Page 46: all Greek sigmas should read Greek deltas.
Page 46, footnote should read:
1
(
13
C/
12
C)
sample
– (
13
C/
12
C)
standard
delta
13
C = ________________________
●
1000 permil
(
13
C/
12
C)
standard
where the reference standard used here is PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) CaCO
3
.
Page 47, 5th line: d
13
C should read delta
13
C.
Page
28
of
28
7/3/2009
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
