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

You don't even know what you linked...that's a breakdown of mans contribution to co2...in case you couldn't figure that out from the fact it adds up to 100%...

a reply to: defcon5

Edit: also your link uses data from the 2007 IPCC report. Use the 2013/14.

a reply to: raymundoko

The point is the same isn't it?

can't put poison into a closed environment and expect there to be no lasting effects.

a reply to: HauntWok

But it has the electrolytes that plants love!!!


Brawndo!



This is typically how climate change, evolution, economy, political debates end up in an online forum. It is important to separate fact from pseudoscience.

a reply to: raymundoko
en.wikipedia.org...'s_atmosphere

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO
2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO
2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[69] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in 1990.[69] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[70][71][72] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes.[73]

This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions, as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[74] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.[4][16] Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks.

Even if it is only 5%, its still more then the sinks can absorb/'year, and the remainder keeps piling up in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

Yeah, so why did it stay around 280 from 8000 BC to 1750 AD?

And so where are the molecules of CO2 from human combustion going? People can approximately count them. In reality almost all the rise is from consequences of human activity---and some of the fossil carbon is being absorbed into the ocean so it would be even worse (if you're not a crustacean) if it all went in the atmosphere.

Ah, I now see the source of your error. You hear about 4% of carbon flux out per year is from humans (which may be true) but there is also a large yearly natural carbon flux back in---and it's the cumulative effect which matters obviously so even if it's 4% per year (considering the size of the biosphere and planet that number is astonishingly large to me!!!) additional the human responsibility for the long-term rise can be much more than 4%.

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

Deep in the past, sure. But everything about the climate was different then, and most importantly there were no humans, much less technological civilization supporting 7 billion on the biosphere as opposed to 50,000 in prehistoric times. And climate changes were associated with mass extinctions. Good idea to NOT tempt that.

And most importantly, back then (many millions of years) the Sun was not as hot and did not radiate as much power (known fact of stellar physics) and so the climate would be cooler then with the same CO2 as now, and likewise with very high CO2 now as then the climate would be hotter still.

Nobody is predicting a 'runaway greenhouse' like Venus---because that isn't just catastrophic for humans but all life. It doesn't have to be anywhere near that large for the results to be a huge problem for humans.

Consider that the difference between current climate and deep ice ages was, on average, about 5 C cooler than today. 5 degrees C difference on global average temp meant that glaciers were TWO MILES THICK in New York, and agriculture was infeasible for nearly all of the land on the planet. We're barreling towards a Heat Age of almost a similar magnitude up. You don't think that won't be a tremendous problem?

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

It doesn't matter. Termites never dug up fossilized carbon which were sequestered for 100 million years (i.e. much much much further back than the relatively recent ice age cycles over which humans evolved from primates). Whatever they emitted, along with every other beast, plant and microbe was in approximate equilibrium with the natural sinks.

Humans are adding something never seen in the geological history of the planet, and doing it at a rate which was never seen in the geological history of the planet.

The very first line of your quote...

But yes, even at 5% nothing is absorbing it.

a reply to: defcon5

Oh really?

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

originally posted by: raymundoko
Oh really?

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...

Consider what solar irradiance would have been during these periods as compared with today. Also, both forcing people to view an offsite thing to figure out what you meant, and direct linking to an image on a website skirting its advertisements, is rather bad form.

Additionally, you still haven't explained the "CO2 half-life" thing. Please do so.

Check out "Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments".

Even the encyclopedia admits the Jurrasic and the Ordovician periods break the co2 model as well as discusses the logarithmic effects of co2.

a reply to: Greven

Did I say half life? I thought I typed shelf life into my phone but I guess not...

Co2 doesn't last forever. Was it not you who said our co2 from 200 years ago was sitting out there? Co2 only lasts 100 years max. If it wasn't you I apologize. I'm doing this all from a phone.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

It doesn't matter.

Termites never dug up fossilized carbon which were sequestered for 100 million years

Is that a good thing? Plants are made from carbon. Plants are 40% carbon by weight and 57% Carbon and two Oxygens by weight. Plants need carbon to make sugar. Carbon is more productive in the atmosphere than in the ground.

Plants are essentially "cold blooded" and will grow faster in direct proportion warmer temperatures.

We might get more in plant weight then we lose in climate change.

(i.e. much much much further back than the relatively recent ice age cycles over which humans evolved from primates). Whatever they emitted, along with every other beast, plant and microbe was in approximate equilibrium with the natural sinks.

Humans are adding something never seen in the geological history of the planet, and doing it at a rate which was never seen in the geological history of the planet.

If that were true, petroleum would never have formed in the first place.

The graphs of paleoclimate don't show short term fluctuations. There could have been a spike at every sharp incline.

CO2 gets saturated from the incoming sunlight. Solar infrared in CO2's absorption spectrum is reflected into space in the same proportion as it is reflected to back to the ground. Actually slightly more is reflected into space because at higher altitude the Earth is a smaller portion of each molecule's sphere of emittance.

The energized CO2 would tend to rise by convection and according to the Ideal Gas Law PV=nrT, an increase in temperature will increase the volume of the Troposphere, moving the heated atmosphere into the cooler Stratosphere and cooling.

The greenhouse effect has not been proved to be a factor in Earth's thermodynamic system.

Heating of the surface of the Earth could happen because

1) The whole solar system is moving through a region of higher energied outer space. Relatively higher particle weight or particle number or particle velocity, or higher background radiation intensity, or some magnetic phenomenon could affect the temperature of everything in the solar system.

2) The solar spectrum shifted to slightly more energetic wavelengths or the solar magnetic field fluctuated.

3) The magma closest to the Earth's crust is relatively hotter than previously.

4) A normal oscillation in the temperature of the atmosphere, the sum of all events.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Can you show me residence time calculations for CO2?

20ppm rise of CO2 per decade is occurring.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Can you show me residence time calculations for CO2?

20ppm rise of CO2 per decade is occurring.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

So?

How do you know that higher CO2 is going to do anything climatologically?

The blackbody radiation given off by the Earth that CO2 can absorb is already completely absorbed by CO2. More CO2 cannot absorb more infra red, it is saturated. CO2 becomes an infrared sponge, carrying energy to higher elevations by convection before releasing it.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

It doesn't matter.

Termites never dug up fossilized carbon which were sequestered for 100 million years

Is that a good thing? Plants are made from carbon. Plants are 40% carbon by weight and 57% Carbon and two Oxygens by weight. Plants need carbon to make sugar. Carbon is more productive in the atmosphere than in the ground.

Not if it disrupts the climate.

Plants are essentially "cold blooded" and will grow faster in direct proportion warmer temperatures.

That's not so clear, and it's not so clear whether total growth (we have plenty of kudzu) is the right thing.

Increased night-time temperatures of important crops can lower yield. And it's increased night-time temperatures where you expect one of the main effects of increased greenhouse effect.

Rice yields and increased night temperatures

In practice, human agriculture is limited by H20 availability not CO2 generally, and climate change will disrupt that. Less snow means that when rains come there's more likely to be floods (bad) and at other times it will be hot and dry. Snowpack melting and slowly emitting water for the growing season is excellent.


We might get more in plant weight then we lose in climate change.

(i.e. much much much further back than the relatively recent ice age cycles over which humans evolved from primates). Whatever they emitted, along with every other beast, plant and microbe was in approximate equilibrium with the natural sinks.

Humans are adding something never seen in the geological history of the planet, and doing it at a rate which was never seen in the geological history of the planet.

If that were true, petroleum would never have formed in the first place.


The digging up and changing at this timescale was never seen before. BTW, the petroleum & coal will probably never form again. Back then, all that enormous carbon could grow and be fossilized because anaerobic bacteria & fungi had not evolved the ability to digest certain important plant fibers & substances. Now they have. So the dead plants will never form coal again, and that carbon will stay active for much longer. And the Sun is hotter now than then.

The graphs of paleoclimate don't show short term fluctuations. There could have been a spike at every sharp incline.

Sure, there could have been aliens doing it too. But there was no physical mechanism remotely similar to what humans are doing now.

And in any case, back then that climate change might have been catastrophic for 7 billion humans as well. Should we tempt it again?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Can you show me residence time calculations for CO2?

20ppm rise of CO2 per decade is occurring.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

So?

How do you know that higher CO2 is going to do anything climatologically?

The blackbody radiation given off by the Earth that CO2 can absorb is already completely absorbed by CO2. More CO2 cannot absorb more infra red, it is saturated. CO2 becomes an infrared sponge, carrying energy to higher elevations by convection before releasing it.

This is a commonly held denialist argument, and it is scientifically incorrect. Work since the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's on radiative transfer shows why the simple arguments don't happen to be true.

www.realclimate.org...

Don't you think the scientists who do this for a living might have actually bothered to figure out the physics in significant detail and validate with experiments before going to the world and discussing the seriousness of the problem?

By the way, the research programs to study this were not remotely motivated by "econazis" or environmentalism or global one-world Marxist governments, or anything like what the conspiracy theorists might imagine. They were funded by Navy and Air Force research organizations for understanding the correct properties of the atmosphere and space for technological developments.

a reply to: mbkennel

Extant disruption of the climate is begging the question.

Science doesn't know what normal is.

AGW uses 200 years of manipulated data compared to 4.5 billion years of causation.

One paper says temperature was the only variable that changed over 30 years. Possible. not certain. What are the biological and biochemical explanations? Not enough oxygen at night? I didn't see Oxygen content as a controlled variable, and certainly there are other variables. This study could be propaganda, or a reason to pursue a better understanding of heat at night vs crop growth.

The ideal snow pack dribbles out the ideal amount of water. When its not ideal, it must be climate change?

All the AGW theory is possible, but none of it has been proven to be true, applicable, or sufficient effect.

The sun could attenuate the co2 by the radiational decomposition of CO2, hiding a natural CO2 spike. An extinct or non-detected micro organism could boost the CO2 like an epidemic, and then die, maybe as a regular effect of the Earth's natural rhythms.

How do you know?

More CO2 itself and more thermal energy itself are good things for plant growth.

a reply to: mbkennel

The NAZI's denied relativity, the Soviet Union proved Lamarckism.

And the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, and the AGW types kept it going until the end of WWII.

AGW is possible, not proved.

AGW is not likely considering the size of the Earth and the amount of carbon, which is very small in comparison.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
So?
How do you know that higher CO2 is going to do anything climatologically?

If nothing else can be proven, it can be proven that its leading to ocean acidification. That is killing off the corals, plankton, and other calcifying organisms that help sink the excess CO2. I believe that Venus is also frequently pointed to as a planet where we can observe runaway CO2 and greenhouse gasses.

So you think man can cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

a reply to: defcon5