Archives quotidiennes :

climate-debate

Capture et stockage du CO2 : une situation étrange…

by Claude Mandril, 13 mai 2019 in ConnaissanceDesEnergies

La capture et le stockage de CO2 (CCS(1)) est indispensable…

Les accords de Paris ont donné l’objectif : un réchauffement climatique « well below 2°C » d’ici 2100 par rapport aux températures de l’ère préindustrielle.

Le dernier rapport du GIEC montre par ailleurs qu’on serait « beaucoup mieux » à + 1,5°C, et que tout dixième de degré compte : + 1,7°C vaut mieux que + 1,8°C. Il faut donc, ajoute le GIEC, atteindre la neutralité carbone autour de 2050.

Or il est complètement exclu d’arrêter toutes les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, et de loin ! :

  • l’AIE estime dans son scénario Sustainable Development (le plus contraignant)(2) que les énergies fossiles représenteront encore 60% de la fourniture mondiale d’énergie en 2040. Même si on juge l’AIE timorée, on est clairement hors limite ! ;

  • la capacité d’extraction charbonnière en Chine a augmenté de 6% en 2018 (selon la National Energy Administration en Chine) ;

  •  et surtout, n’oublions pas les émissions « de procédé » (ciment, sidérurgie, chimie, agroalimentaire).

Donc il faudra des « puits » de carbone. En premier lieu, les forêts mais à condition qu’elles soient exploitées et que les produits de cette exploitation donnent un stockage permanent. L’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris montre que ce n’est pas garanti… L’usage du bois en chaudière réduit les émissions en remplaçant des émissions de carbone fossile, mais ce n’est pas un puits (sauf avec CCS !).

Reste donc la CCS, qui est indispensable. D’ailleurs, sur les 4 scénarios du GIEC, 3 comportent le déploiement de la CCS, le 4e étant un repoussoir.

Et pourtant la CCS est complètement ignorée voire vilipendée, sauf dans une dizaine de pays.

Examinons les critiques ou les objections :

 

…

climate-debate

What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations

by Herman Harde, April 3, 2019 in Earth Sciences

Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over

recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising

temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically

scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative

concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional

with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really

human activities are responsible for the observed CO2 increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just

opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are

responsible for any observed climate changes.

Keywords: Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, CO2 Residence Time, Anthropogenic Emissions,

Fossil Fuel Combustion, Land Use Change, Climate Change

…

 

climate-debate

Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2

by Edwin X Berry , June, 2019 in JAtmOceanSciences

Abstract
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
…
climate and geology, climate-debate

Volcanism Altering Bering Sea Eco-Systems, Not Climate Change

by James  E. Kamis, July 8, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Volcanism, primarily ocean floor in nature, is the most feasible and plausible cause of recent alterations to the Bering Sea physical and biological systems, not climate change.

Since 2014, multiple changes to the Bering Sea’s physical and biological systems such as a rise in seawater temperature, sea ice melting, alteration of commercial fish migration patterns and the very sudden die-off of certain sea bird species have made front-page news.

Many scientists have been quick to attribute these supposedly ‘unnatural’ events to human-induced atmospheric warming or climate change without mentioning or giving due consideration to emissions from active volcanic features that circumvent the entire Bering Sea and populate its seafloor.

This immediate jump to a climate change cause and event effect relationship is especially difficult to understand knowing that frequently during the last five years we have been informed of yet another eruption from a Bering Sea area volcano located in either Russia, Alaska, or on the Bering seafloor.

So, let’s take a moment to review Bering Sea volcanic activity and its likely effect on the area’s physical and biological systems.

…