NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: pheonix358


1/ Is man causing it? Well, no, not in a significant way over the last few decades. Certainly cutting down the forests and rainforests has had an affect and much of that coincided (or was causal to/by) the industrial revolution. But is man even a major contributor, well, no, I think not.

Many do not realize the significance of a 40% rise in CO2 in such a short amount of time. This is caused by human activity and the figure continues to climb.

It just takes a little time on google earth to see the enormous changes man has made to this planet. To say the world is too big for man not too damage it is living in the dark ages. We are on the verge of becoming a type 1 civilization, we will never get there is so many choose to ignore the world's problems and pretend we are not a major contributor to the declining health of the planet.

Again, 4-5% of co2 in the atmosphere is man's...why do you think all of the 40% is man made? Where did you get this innacurate information? 5% of 400ppm is 20ppm...

You are reading the media material that focuses on the 280-400 number since the industrial revolution which is worded that way to trick people into thinking the industrial revolution caused all of it.

Co2 was 10's of times higher in the past. A runaway greenhouse was not triggered. The effects of co2 are logarithmic.

a reply to: jrod

Edit: sorry, I should really say 10-15% since a bit over half of mans co2 is reclaimed which undoubtedly is replacing the reclamation of natural sources of co2.

a reply to: raymundoko

I think it is safe to assume that the 280ppm to 400pm, a 40% increase since the industrial revolution is a figure worthy of paying attention to. At the rate we are going, we'll be at 500pm in about 25 years.

The 4% you cite(total CO2, or 10% of the increase), only accounts for one source of CO2 from humans in the atmosphere. It is deceptively low.

We went over this several times Ray. A 40% increase in CO2 over a few hundreds years is a real number! Scientist all over the globe agree on this.

Lets make sure we are clear on the math: 280ppm to 400ppm is a 120ppm change. (120/280)*100%=42%........

No, 5% is ALL man made co2. Why do you think otherwise?

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

We have been over this before. Why are you trying to downplay man's impact on CO2 in the atmosphere?

That figure only accounts for one source of human CO2. It will take a few weeks but I can try to email some PHDs who are experts in this field and have them dissect the numbers just as I did, since a college dropout like myself is not a legitimate source.

Tell me where the other 100ppm of CO2 has come from over the last 200 or so years?

The fact is we have seen an increase of over 40% in CO2 in a very short amount of time. This is alarming and we can make changes to curve this. Those changes are too costly for certain giant industries for them to consider.

a reply to: jrod

Termites, cows, sheep...

A study of African termites showed they give off more co2 than reclaimed by sinks. Should we eradicate termites? A study of Australian termites shows their population is growing exponentially. Am I saying they are responsible for all co2? No. But you can't argue that scientifically their co2 can be measured in the atmosphere and it grows each year.

And again, 5% is A.L.L. manmade emissions, not just one source. I got that from the IPCC REPORT. I think you got your information from a web blog.

Nobody is arguing the 40% increase, you just don't understand where it came from.

a reply to: raymundoko

I understand more than most. Probably more so than you despite your creds. This has been something I've obsessed with this since elementary school. And once again I do not recite information from blogs so kindly stop accusing me of having faulty information.

One study citing termites, termite were here long before the industrial revolution. The fact is you can not account for the extra 100ppm of CO2. The 4-5% figure, or about 20ppm of CO2 can be traced to human sources, to say that is the only source of human CO2 is a bit of a blind statement, especially considering that leaves us with another 100ppm of CO2 that is unaccounted for.

Now someone with your creds should not have a problem doing a simple residence time calculation. So can you demonstrate the residence time of CO2 before and after the industrial revolution?

Please show the math, so you can verify to all of ATS your advanced knowledge of atmospheric chemistry!

If you really want a scary number? Ch4. Humans account for 60% of ch4 in the atmosphere. Termites account for 11. It is a better greenhouse gas than co2 but has lower shelf life.

a reply to: jrod

You should research the half life of co2...

a reply to: Greven

a reply to: raymundoko

Methane is certainly a problem that does not get the same PR as CO2.

I do think within 50 years we will start to see major changes as a result of all this. Our species needs to clean up it's act.

First, kindly read the latest IPCC report.

It clearly says all mans co2 is 5%...that's all you need to know to realize the rest is from other sources. I'm not sure why that is difficult for you nor do I understand why you think I need to prove anything beyond that point.

If 5% of co2 in the atmosphere is all mans co2, then the rest is from other sources.

By all means if I am wrong please show me how I misread the IPCC report...

a reply to: jrod

Also, when you read the IPCC report, skip the first part, which isn't scientific, but written by a group of globalists. Skip to the actual scientific data buried over halfway in. Also, quite a bit of data was stripped from the actual report, but it still available through the IPCC as raw data.

a reply to: raymundoko

5% or 20ppm. About 10% of the observed increase of CO2 concentrations. Got it. This can be tied directly to human activity do to burning fossil fuels. It does not account for other sources of man made CO2, both direct and indirect and the increased residence time due to less CO2 sinks.

This does not change the 40% increase in CO2 we have observed in just a few hundred years. That leaves us with a 100ppm of CO2 that is unaccounted for.

What other extra sources of CO2 that we are not accounting for?

Also, I would like to see your residence time calculations for CO2, Thank you.

a reply to: jrod

Yes, termites were here prior to the industrial revolution, however their populations are growing exponentially per an Australian study. Also, sheep, goat, buffalo and cow populations have greatly increased in the last 50 years. Goats have actually doubled. Overall livestock has increased 30% since the 60's.

a reply to: jrod

OK, so you mean indirect. This I can agree with. Deforestation, livestock etc. You kept wording it like burning fossil fuels was the cause of the increase, that is only a small part of it.

a reply to: raymundoko

Not really. That may be your perception, or the just the theme of this thread.

Here is a good site for CO2 counts:

ESRL Global Monitoring Division

Right now CO2 is increasing at over 20 ppm per decade.

a reply to: raymundoko

What? Carbon emissions aren't safe to breathe?

I'm shocked! Wouldn't that mean that all those emissions being pumped into the atmosphere would be doing the same thing?

So you have no understanding of how much co2 would need to be in the atmosphere before it harms humans. Got it.

a reply to: HauntWok

Again, that's total co2...

a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: raymundoko
You should research the half life of co2...

a reply to: Greven

Please, do elucidate.

This should be good.

a reply to: raymundoko
I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but according to the EPA this is where the CO2 is coming from:
26% Energy generation such as coal power plants.
19% Industry.
17% Forestry.
14% Agriculture.
13% Transportation.
Etc...
www.epa.gov...

Maybe the 5% you're talking about is from 10 billion humans breathing, and not encompassing all the other human related activities that are driving it up.