It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA shows a year of C02 cycles on Earth

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   
As many pieces I have read showing cooler/hotter records ,all I can say is wow . Some papers use adjusted numbers ,some don't . Take this one for instance . Ocean warming picks up speed, hits warmest temperatures ever recorded www.uhm.hawaii.edu... Now it would seem that what they may be saying is true .Sometime though it's not so much what is being said but what is not being said .

Bob Tisdale has a piece where he looks at the situation and seems to do a good job explaining the finer details of how the system works and also looks at the previous year as well .Good post with lots of graphs and animations . wattsupwiththat.com...

"INTERVIEWS WITH TIMMERMANN AND TRENBERTH

Close on the heels of the University of Hawaii press release came a ReportingClimateScience.com article, which included interviews with Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth. Authored by Leon Clifford, that article has the very appropriate title Warming Pacific Drives Global Temperatures. As you read the article, you’ll note that much of it is speculation. The use of the words and phrases “could”, “may”, “whether or not”, and “still uncertain” broadcasted the fact that Timmermann and Trenberth were speculating about the end of the hiatus. The subtitle explains the content of the ReportingClimateScience.com article (my boldface):

Major warming in the Pacific Ocean has driven up global temperatures, impacted El Niño, affected weather systems and could signal the end of the so called global warming pause, say two leading climate scientists."

"The second thing to note about the article is that, while it goes unsaid, it’s blatantly obvious that Timmermann and Trenberth are noting that the annual, decadal, and multidecadal processes taking place in the Pacific can enhance global warming (cause global warming) or suppress it (stop it).

Do the climate models used by the IPCC for their alarmist predictions consider those processes?

Of course not. In fact, the models were aligned with the naturally enhanced warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century, without taking into consideration the other half of the Pacific processes that can suppress that warming. (Same thing with the North Atlantic processes that drive the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO.) This, of course, is one of the reasons for the hiatus and for all of those climate scientists scrambling for explanations. Someday the climate science community is going to admit their long-term projections of global warming are at least two times too high, because they failed to consider the natural enhancement of the warming from the 1970s to about 2000. Will I see that admission in my lifetime? Not likely.

WERE THE CHANGES UNPRECEDENTED?

The author of the ReportingClimateScience article used the word “unprecedented” a couple of times. In fact, the first word of his article is unprecedented. I’ve read the article a few times and I can find no reference to the 2013 warming in the North Pacific that preceded this year’s warming. In other words, the ReportingClimateScience article was about the events of 2014, not about an unusual warming in the North Pacific that also took place in 2013."

One thing that has been on the minds and lips on both sides of the debate is "The Pause" This pause is not a small matter when you consider it a pause in warming .Kevin Trenberth has been looking for the missing heat and as best as he can imagine is it's hiding in the deep deep oceans . No proff for that but he cant find it . This pause thing seems to be a real big problem for the pro-agw crowd because it messes up the trend . So there is a debate as to what constitutes a trend . The pro-agw crowd has in the past used a time frame but they dont want to use that old one and want to make a new time frame to establish what makes a trend . It's called moving the goal posts .

I think you might be hard pressed convincing that most of NA is warming seeing all the cold it's been having as of late . Remember that it's this nasty co2 molecule that causing warming ,or so the story goes . All the while co2 levels have been rising the temperatures have been in a pause . Something is not quite right with the assumption that co2 drives temperature wouldn't you think ?


a reply to: Phage




posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Seeing that co2 is also to blame for sea level rise I thought I should throw this out there too .

Long-term sea-level change revisited: the role of salinity

OPEN ACCESS

Paul J Durack, Susan E Wijffels and Peter J Gleckler

Abstract

Of the many processes contributing to long-term sea-level change, little attention has been paid to the large-scale contributions of salinity-driven halosteric changes. We evaluate observed and simulated estimates of long-term (1950-present) halosteric patterns and compare these to corresponding thermosteric changes. Spatially coherent halosteric patterns are visible in the historical record, and are consistent with estimates of long-term water cycle amplification. Our results suggest that long-term basin-scale halosteric changes in the Pacific and Atlantic are substantially larger than previously assumed, with observed estimates and coupled climate models suggesting magnitudes of ~25% of the corresponding thermosteric changes. In both observations and simulations, Pacific basin-scale freshening leads to a density reduction that augments coincident thermosteric expansion, whereas in the Atlantic halosteric changes partially compensate strong thermosteric expansion via a basin-scale enhanced salinity density increase. Although regional differences are apparent, at basin-scales consistency is found between the observed and simulated partitioning of halosteric and thermosteric changes, and suggests that models are simulating the processes driving observed long-term basin-scale steric changes. Further analysis demonstrates that the observed halosteric changes and their basin partitioning are consistent with CMIP5 simulations that include anthropogenic CO2 forcings (Historical), but are found to be inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings (HistoricalNat).

Full PDF: iopscience.iop.org...

Article: iopscience.iop.org...
a reply to: the2ofusr1



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Who is Bob Tisdale?

Good post with lots of graphs and animations .
Ooooh. Graphs and animations. Cool!


I think you might be hard pressed convincing that most of NA is warming seeing all the cold it's been having as of late .
Only to those who don't know the difference between weather and climate.


Something is not quite right with the assumption that co2 drives temperature wouldn't you think ?
No.
 


Your second source:

Further analysis demonstrates that the observed halosteric changes and their basin partitioning are consistent with CMIP5 simulations that include anthropogenic CO2 forcings (Historical), but are found to be inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings (HistoricalNat).

iopscience.iop.org...

It says that observed sea level changes are consistent with models which include anthropogenic induced warming and inconsistent with models which do not. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but it seems to conflict with the one you were seeming to attempt with your prior post.




edit on 11/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Seeing there has been a constant rise in co2 levels and rising in sea levels and models are saying that temperatures should rise as well ,then how is it we have the Pause ? Where is the extra heat ? a reply to: Phage ETA I grabbed this quote from another person discussing the paper I though was some good questions to ask .

but let’s ask a few simple questions:

Which models?
The ones that don’t agree very well with observations?
Or the ones that disagree completely with observations?
What is the value of using a large number of models? Do they average their outputs?
Exactly what is the value of averaging the outputs of a large number of models known to disagree with observations?
If they weren’t averaged, what was the value of using a large number of them?
If they were all in agreement with one another, there would be no need to use a large number, you could use just a few, could you not?
If there was large disagreement between the models, of what value could ANY of them be in coming to a conclusion?



edit on 22-11-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Seeing there has been a constant rise in co2 levels and rising in sea levels and models are saying that temperatures should rise as well ,then how is it we have the Pause ?
Internal variability. The models show it can happen, historical data shows it does happen.
 




but let’s ask a few simple questions:

Which models?
There is a list of the models used within the article and why those models were selected.

The questions also demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of how climate modeling works. There is no single model which simulates all aspects of climate and/or regions. The questions also indicate that the complainer did not read the article because the answers to most of the questions can be found in it. Did you read it? Do you have any specific criticism or do you just rely on bloggers for your interpretations?

edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Me not being a scientist ,I have to rely on others to get a idea of what is being said .Sometime the devil is in the details and it's usually a biased interpretation given by the author [s] of either side . I have yet to see any of the models do very well when compared to observations . You are correct I would say when you sat variables are a big factor but also the sensitivities to the variables as well . In fact when you reduce the sensitivity of co2 in the models to 0 they do a much better job .That would suggest that co2 is not a factor in the heat budget of the earth . Just like that butterfly in the Amazon might theoretically have a affect on a storm of the coast of Africa doesn't mean butterflies are a threat to human survival .

I think that there has been way to much money and effort to make us believe co2 is a bad thing and keep our minds off of pollution and other things that threaten humanity more . a reply to: Phage



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1



Me not being a scientist ,I have to rely on others to get a idea of what is being said .
And you rely on bloggers rather than scientists?


In fact when you reduce the sensitivity of co2 in the models to 0 they do a much better job
According to whom?


I think that there has been way to much money and effort to make us believe co2 is a bad thing and keep our minds off of pollution and other things that threaten humanity more
In case you didn't notice, CO2 and pollution go hand in hand. They come from the burning of fossil fuels.

edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
It would seem to me that even you can get some of the science correct and there are scientist that blog .I could drop some names of those that do but I am sure you have visited some sites to hear what they have had to say .

I could link you to some people that look at and do statistical analysis of scientific papers if you like .It's amazing just how graphs like the MM hockey stick comes about .CO2 was put on a list by the EPA as a pollutant but it occurs in nature . Plants need it to grow . Produce more when the levels are increased ,and without it the earth would be a dead zone .

In fact the levels of co2 in the environment were much much higher before man started burning fossil fuels . Remember all that large fauna and large animals that died off because of a meteor strike . Well if you can believe the scientific records that is . We wouldn't be able to have the technology we have today if it were not fossil fuels or the byproducts of pollution . a reply to: Phage



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Produce more when the levels are increased ,and without it the earth would be a dead zone .
Without it Earth would be a snowball. More doesn't mean better.



In fact the levels of co2 in the environment were much much higher before man started burning fossil fuels .
CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 400,000 years. Man was not "man" 400,000 years ago.




Remember all that large fauna and large animals that died off because of a meteor strike .
That's one theory. So what?



We wouldn't be able to have the technology we have today if it were not fossil fuels or the byproducts of pollution
And that technology means we can develop other technologies to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and produce both less CO2 and less pollution. We can go beyond burning stuff to stay warm.

edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will? spectrum.ieee.org...

So the pollutant co2 is part of our natural world and plays a critical roll in our survival .I wonder what the optimum level might be ? I wonder if the optimal level might be less if humans and trees were not part of the natural world .I wonder if man had to plant more crops in the future that optimal level might be higher ?


a reply to: Phage



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?
Today's technologies can reduce the rate of change (we have reduced the amount of CO2 production in the US and Europe a bit, sounds like China may be coming on board). As the article you linked says.

Reducing the rate of change (not reversing it) increases the amount of time available to adapt to the changes and to develop new technologies. Or is your attitude this? "Oh well, nothing to do I guess. Sorry kid, we wrecked your planet for you. Maybe you can fix it if you invent new stuff."



I wonder if the optimal level might be less if humans and trees were not part of the natural world
Optimal for who, in that case? If humans and trees weren't here, who cares?



I wonder if man had to plant more crops in the future that optimal level might be higher ?
The addition of crops does not have much of an reduction effect on CO2 levels. It can actually increase them since it entails the removal of existing vegetation (trees) and/or the use of carbon producing technologies.

Earlier you said you though reducing pollution was a good thing. You now seem to be saying that it doesn't really matter. That we should just keep burning fossil fuels at the current (or growing?) rate because...
Well, I'm not sure what your reason is.


edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
So at the end of the day we can each decide what level of technology we either use or not . I sold my car 6 years ago and now walk and drive a bicycle . I am on a power grid that uses nuclear and hydro electric .There is no way of living without contributing to the production of co2 . My guess is that military's are the biggest polluters but I wouldn't begrudge them the co2 they produce compared to the real nasty stuff .Joe public does what the controllers convince him to do . They are the ones producing it and making the money from it and convincing us to participate .

I am anti- lots but co2 is not one of them .People need heat and food . It's a big old diverse earth and different peoples
have different needs .



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




They are the ones producing it and making the money from it and convincing us to participate .
Obviously. They are the ones saying "AGW? Phhft!"

And who are the ones who are saying we need to change our habits? To cut back on burning stuff.

edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
We convince ourselves . Just reading a bit about co2

Dr. Dietrich Koelle is one of the few scientists to assess estimates of natural annual CO2 emissions.

Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions GtC per annum

1.Respiration (Humans, animals, phytoplankton) 45 to 52

2. Ocean out-gassing (tropical areas) 90 to 100

3. Volcanic and other ground sources 0.5 to 2

4. Ground bacteria, rotting and decay 50 to 60

5. Forest cutting, forest fires 1 to 3

6. Anthropogenic emissions Fossil Fuels (2010) 9.5

TOTAL 196 to 226.5

Source: Dr. Dietrich Koelle

The IPCC estimate of human production (6) for 2010 was 9.5 GtC, but that is total production. One of the early issues in the push to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt to get US ratification. The US asked for carbon credits, primarily for CO2 removed through reforestation, so a net figure would apply to their assessment as a developed nation. It was denied. The reality is the net figure better represents human impact. If we use human net production (6) at 5 GtC for 2010, then it falls within the range of the estimate for three natural sources, (1), (2), and (4).
a reply to: Phage That comes from a blog provided by a professor . I see you like to use wiki and thats ok . We are all convinced from the sources we search out .



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: H1ght3chHippie

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Because co2 is loved by plants they have a tendency to gobble up extra if added in green houses .I am not sure of the figures but it is substantial to the out-put of the plants .


This.

So maybe the alleged increase in carbondioxide is rather due to a reduction in plant mass, especially trees, rather than due to an increased output of said gas.


Actually, the biosphere (especially in the Northern hemisphere) has been expanding, and carbon absorption has increased. but co2 levels in the atmosphere are still increasing. The difference however is that c02 levels in the atmosphere are not rising that fast, and most programs that try to project future co2 levels are nearly always wrong. This is because the Biosphere is never taken into account. Deforestation will have an effect on how much co2 is absorbed, however over all old growth trees actually absorb very little co2 compared to smaller faster growing plants. Example being a young 6ft pine tree absorbs much more co2 than a 100 foot old growth pine. Most of the vegetation growth has been in grasslands and young forests in the terrestrial biosphere, and huge algae blooms in the oceanic biosphere.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Good point . I am in the middle of reading a piece that has a look at many parts to the whole and data is or seems to be the biggest problem in accessing the truth of the matter . from the piece

“Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists from Harvard and MIT have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.”

Oceans are critical to CO2 levels because of their large sink or source capacity.

Data necessary to create a viable determination of climate mechanisms and thereby climate change, is completely inadequate. This applies especially to the structure of climate models. There is no data for at least 80 percent of the grids covering the globe, so they guess; it’s called parameterization. The 2007 IPCC Report notes,

Due to the limited resolutions of the models, many of these processes are not resolved adequately by the model grid and must therefore be parameterized. The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.

Variable results occur because of inadequate data at the most basic level and subjective choices by the people involved.
a reply to: Rockpuck



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Numbers 1 through 4 are part of the carbon cycle. They do not affect atmospheric concentrations of CO2 because they recycle atmospheric CO2. They are carbon neutral.

1) The CO2 we exhale comes from the carbon we consume in food. The food we eat comes from photosynthesis which removes CO2 from the air and turns it into carbohydrates, which we (and animals) eat.

2) The outgassing of CO2 in tropic seas occurs because the temperatures are higher. There is absorption of CO2 in temperate and Arctic seas where the water is colder.

3) There is no indication that volcanic activity has increased yet CO2 levels have. Steadily.

4) See 1).


The trouble is, when we burn fossil fuels we are not recycling CO2. We are adding CO2 which has been sequestered underground for millions of years. Without that added CO2, there is a balance. We've screwed that balance up. That's why CO2 concentrations are going up.


The IPCC estimate of human production (6) for 2010 was 9.5 GtC
Slight problem here. That 9.5 GtC converts to 34.865 GtCO2. The blogger who refers to Dr. Koelle's figures seems to be somewhat deceptive. Mixing up units to try to confuse people. It seems to have worked.

^ Fossil carbon dioxide emissions include those from the production, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels and as a by-product from cement production. An emission of 1 GtC corresponds to 3.67 GtCO2.

www.ipcc.ch...


edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Rockpuck

The difference however is that c02 levels in the atmosphere are not rising that fast
Incorrect.
co2now.org...



This is because the Biosphere is never taken into account.
Incorrect. Please refer to section 1.3.9:
www.nipccreport.org...

edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
With the many under water volcanoes that we have only recently discovered I cant see how you could say they have not increased . We basically don't monitor them .In fact we are in short supply on many instrumental measuring devices . The majority of the oceans don't have any monitors but are filled in with a best guess .And then they tell a story that shows a few 100's of a degree in change . We are good at some things some of the time but not all things and every where .Every new paper coming out have a usual statement that scientist were surprised . They then go on to say we think. it could be,it might be . If they knew they would say so and when they don't they wont say so . A person would come to think that maybe they are just trying there best but shouldn't the truth be the best . I don't care one way or another what the data says but it would seem that they do . And they know they have to make the data speak to the co2 scam or they wont get the grants and funding to do the research . a reply to: Phage



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

With the many under water volcanoes that we have only recently discovered I cant see how you could say they have not increased .
I said there is no indication that volcanic activity has increased. Much less at a rate commensurate with the increase in CO2.



I don't care one way or another what the data says
Don't care that the data says that CO2 levels are increasing. Don't care that the data says that temperatures are increasing. What do you care about? Just the stuff that a few bloggers have to say? You seemed to care about Koelle's data, one side of it anyway, you ignored the other side. The uptake side. The imbalance caused by fossil fuels.


And they know they have to make the data speak to the co2 scam or they wont get the grants and funding to do the research
You know this how? You know that big oil has a lot of money to spend, right? Why is there so little actual research that says that temperatures are not rising. Why is there so little actual research that says CO2 levels are not rising? Can't the oil companies pay enough to get scientists to say what they want them to say?

Why do you think it's ok to keep burning stuff?

edit on 11/22/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join