The Seas, Oceans and Forests as CO2 Sinks.

Trees are pretty benign species as far as animals go unless a large one falls on one or a lot catch fire. For other plants they are a nightmare, very little growing in their vicinity as the ‘kings of the forest’ grab all the nutrients around them for themselves, leaving little left over for their community. Vegetation around them is sparse, and because of the cover ‘stunted.’ They have a lifetime ranging from years to thousands of years, but they die. While they are growing they take in nutrients from the soil and CO2 from the air during the day and the opposite at night, but the net amount is the volume of the tree in mainly cellulose. When they die, catch fire or are burnt as fuel the whole of that CO2 is released again in a few hours in the case of burning, unless used as a wood product, then may not release it until something like 100 years later. Because it’s an on-going process, trees growing, dying and burning all the time the net balance in CO2 is negligible, trees and plants thriving in our currently increasing CO2 dearth environment. This effectively sinks the idea that they are a sink, and if they are, only a temporary occurrence, measured in maximum 100’s of years, before they dump it all again.

Next, the oceans and seas. Again according to climate ‘scientists’ they don’t seem to conform to physics and chemistry, where a particular pressure and concentration in an atmosphere above a liquid produces a particular volume of gas within it. The higher the pressure and the lower the temperature the less gas.

With CO2 it’s been around for billion of years to reach a level of equilibrium. Unless temperature, pressure, or concentrations vary vastly, it won’t take in any more CO2. It’s a balance at a certain temperature, with nothing of this absorbing vast amounts. At a certain pressure and temperature it holds a certain amount, and normally won’t take any more in unless the pressure rises or the temperature drops.

The average air temperature across the land and sea areas of the world according to NOAA is currently 14.7 °C. The average ocean surface temperature across the world is 15-17 °C. The average air pressure at sea level is 1013.25 mb. It’s said that past 200 metres the seas layers don’t mix much and from the scarce research information, mainly centred around proving man made climate change, the is evidence that very little CO2 is absorbed below this level. 71% of the world is covered in water and the surface of the planet is around 510 million square km. So given this, we have around about 200m x 0.71 x 510,000,000km of CO2 absorbing volume, or 7.24 x 10^16 cubic metres. With an absorption rate for CO2 of about 1.9gm/L at normal pressure we can work out rough figures. Rough as CO2 absorption rises with temperature drop, but falls as depth increases.

At 1kg per litre we get 7.24 x 10^19 litres x 1.9gm of CO2 = 137,598 billion tonnes at any one time. If the average sea temperature rises to 20 °C, this falls to 123,114 billion tonnes, or 14,484 billion tonnes less.

Where do we get this idea from that these are CO2 absorbing sinks, and has it ever been tested?

It’s said that human activity adds 43 billion tonnes worth of CO2 a year. A rise in ocean and sea temperature of 3 °C means that the sea can hold 337 times less CO2 than this, or more CO2 than has been made by humans over their entire time on earth so far.

In the UK we account for about 1% of all emissions and plan to reduce them by 80% but 2050. So this is a 2.7% reduction per year having a 0.027% or a 1/3800th effect on the world, China and the US doing the same in one year having an effect of the UK doing it tomorrow.

But where does this figure of 43 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions in the world come from? Nobody seems to know where it originates, and how it’s calculated.  A rough guess is that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by a certain amount and assuming all of that is the difference human production makes, it apportioned to each country per capita and standard of living. CO2 levels are monitored for concentrations, and this is apportioned to the country where it is found. Certainly there is little or no research into amounts based on land and sea areas, land absorbing significantly less than areas surrounded by oceans, and windy areas at various times of the year having less than less windy ones to move the CO2 around.

As far as I can see we have rough approximations giving trends, that are put into models, which average out at various levels, many parameters being ignored or given special relevance, and then interpreted and entered into other models that are calculated and giving trends that suggest certain things are happening. Probably the end result being interpreted, so the chance of them being anywhere near the truth is slightly more than chance, but treated as exact and gospel.

We keep of hearing ‘all the experts say so, so it must be the truth,’ backed up by out of subject scientists status in a lot of cases, not objectively or experimentally worked out evidence. Because the whole thing is vastly multi-disciplinary across many subjects, chemistry and physics being low on the agenda, and models and non-experimental deductions from many other peoples models and deductions, do we get even any semblance of reality, or is it pre-decided opinion led proof?

Is this the ultimate in a long stream of confirmation bias.

We have decided this is the answer, this is the reason, so we can work out what is in-between along the way, only fund research that is along these lines and conforms to this. Anything else, or any other thoughts being sacrilege and must be suppressed or discounted without discussion.

Case closed. Reality closed. Minds and intellects closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *