Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

How could increased temperature not increase biological growth?

Who said it wouldn't? I don't know if it would or not. You can assume it would if you wish but I do know that many forms of life have narrow windows of survival. I do know that cooler seas are more prolific than warmer.
www.cmmap.org...

Increasing biomass as a consequence of increased temperature would be a positive feedback system, which would fit ever increasing CO2.

The sea floor rifts put out fossil fuel aged Carbon and the sea floor rifts might have something to do with the cyclic temperature changes as well.

Tell me, what is the 13C/12C ratio of the carbon which undersea plumes emit? How does it relate to the observed changes in atmospheric ratios?

The ratio would depend on the path the CO2 followed as it moved through the mantle. The closer the carbon got to the radioactive core, the more heavy isotopes would be in it. After subduction, rock moves down towards the core, because it is cooler and therefore denser than the surrounding mantle. At some point it becomes heated enough to rise due to lower density. The lighter atoms are being sorted out from the heavier by this convection.

The AGW experts must know all those numbers precisely.

Is there reason to believe that there has been an enormous increase in undersea volcanic activity in the past 100 years or so which would account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? Levels that have rapidly risen to higher than have existed for more than 400,000 years?

Maybe the CO2 and the warming are the proof. Why can't the interior of the Earth fluctuate in the amount of heat it transfers to the surface? That would be consistent with a cyclic long term warming and cooling like the Medieval Climatic Optimum followed by the Little Ice Age followed by our current warming.

The Roman barbarian hell was caused by cooling that made the barbarians move south, after the Roman Warm Period.
The end for Rome was soon after the Danube froze solid and the Goths could cross at their pleasure.

Historically there is a 500 year of so cycle of warm and cold. Right now we have begun the warm.

Larger magnitude temperature changes from the deep Earth could explain the Ice Age Glaciations. The welling up of the hottest mantle was slowed or redirected for some reason (vortex turbulence?) causing the beginning of glaciation. The additional weight of the glaciation on top of the continent pushed the craton down deeper into the hot mantle, which could explain the end of the glaciation. And might also explain petroleum formation, as opposed to coal.

On the other hand, we have been burning an awful lot of stuff, haven't we?

Compared to the mass of the Earth, not necessarily. Like floating ice melting in water, all of the energy from fossil fuels was already on the planet, all we have done is transduce it. The total amount of energy is the same.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Increasing biomass as a consequence of increased temperature would be a positive feedback system, which would fit ever increasing CO2.

Like I said, you can assume increased temperatures would lead to increasing biomass if you wish, but why would it increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Maybe the CO2 and the warming are the proof.

Or maybe the CO2 is the cause of the warming, just like the physics say it is.

Historically there is a 500 year of so cycle of warm and cold.

Not really.

Larger magnitude temperature changes from the deep Earth could explain the Ice Age Glaciations.

Actually, changes in solar insolation due to orbital and axial cycles probably do a better job.

Compared to the mass of the Earth, not necessarily.

But we're just talking about CO2 in the atmosphere, aren't we? The stuff that's in the ground doesn't really affect climate.

Like floating ice melting in water, all of the energy from fossil fuels was already on the planet, all we have done is transduce it.

The energy from fossil fuels is not the problem, its the carbon being turned into CO2 that's the problem.

The total amount of energy is the same.

Really? All that solar energy (about 250 W/m^2) don't count?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Increasing biomass as a consequence of increased temperature would be a positive feedback system, which would fit ever increasing CO2.

Like I said, you can assume increased temperatures would lead to increasing biomass if you wish, but why would it increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Constantly increasing biomass. A positive feedback resulting in more biomass, that is, a greater total mass of biological chemicals on Earth with each life cycle. When more biomass decomposes, more CO2 is produced, which facilitates a higher total biomass on Earth than the previous iteration, which after decomposition puts more CO2 into the air, which causes another higher total biomass on Earth etc...

Total Biomass on Earth0 + increased heat = total biomass on Earth1

TBE0 < TBE1

TBE1 decomposes into more CO2 than TBE0 because has more chemicals, i.e. the total biomass is larger and so makes a larger total planetary CO2 while decomposing.

(TBEn ) + increased heat + (additional CO2 from decomposition of additional biomass, i.e. (TBEn) - (TBEn -1)) = (TBEn+1)

repeat until global cooling

The amount of CO2 increases with every life cycle, positive feedback, geometrically growing CO2 concetration.

a reply to: mbkennel

Yes there are some positive feedback mechanisms, but yes the climate can be quite different with a 1% change in global radiative forcing.

The positive feedback mechanisms are the whole argument. Why so mute?

In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."
en.wikipedia.org...

Radiative forcing is simply the change in temperature. Calling every temperature change "radiative forcing" is like calling sugar "metabolic incendiaries".

a reply to: Semicollegiate

When more biomass decomposes, more CO2 is produced,

Plants turn CO2 into biomass. CO2 from the atmosphere. When that biomass decomposes it releases that CO2. There is no net change.

TBE1 decomposes into more CO2 than TBE0 because has more chemicals, i.e. the total biomass is larger and so makes a larger total planetary CO2 while decomposing.

No. The carbon (C) and oxygen(O) which make up CO2 originate and return to the atmosphere. We are not concerned with "more chemicals", just two elements and one compound of them.

a reply to: Justoneman

OK then, what is CO2 percent wise of the atmosphere for number one"?

Here is a good place to start your research on that topic: CO2 concentration

For the month of January, 2015 the average as measured at Moana Loa is 399.96. up from 397.80 in January 2014. This is an increase of approximately 25% since 1958.

For the record I will point out that the last time this level of CO2 in the atmosphere, Humans did not exist. There were certainly not 5 billion people living on the planet dependent on environmental conditions that have been relatively stabile for 10,000 years and could be completely turned upside down in a couple of decades.

Number two what is the optimum temperature of mother Earth?

That is a silly, naive question, it certainly is not a useful question.

The only questions that are relevant are

• Can the actions of mankind change the climate on a global scale?
  
• Is mankind changing the climate on a global scale?
  
• What are the consequences of that change?
  
• Should mankind continue the behaviour that is producing that change?
  

I think you give way, way too much importance to this and have been sucked in by liars who need money from us to be rich and powerful.

Have you examined who the "rich and powerful" liars are who have sucked you into pressing their agenda? Well have you? Do you really think some guy plinking away on the calcium content in oyster shells in the pliocene thinks his research is going to make him rich? Are you nuts? On the other hand, what is the motivation of companies like Exxon/Mobil and people like the Koch Brothers? You don't think it has something to do with sucking as much money from us as possible?

Climate Change Deniers Funding

Have you signed up for your funding yet? No, surely that is the only reason you could have for maintaining your stance in the face of so much opposing fact? OK, I joke, and I assume you are not on the payroll, but why would you possibly think that scientists are only in it for the money?

Who pays people to tell them they are going to die unless they give all their money to the guy who tells them they are going to die? People are paid to do science because society values the result of science, not because scientist lie to them.

The dots are easy to connect if you care to try to know the truth. I suspect you do, like phage, but both of you fail to see the importance of the entire cycle of global temps not the small window the IPCC chose.

Clearly it is you who do not understand the importance of the "entire cycle of global temps". Every mass extinction ever recorded was during times of high CO2 contentrations. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

The IPCC does not concern it self with a 'small window' of the global temperature cycle. It concerns itself with the entirety of Science about global environmental changes over all time and what that tells us about the consequences of continuing our profligate behaviour.

Scientists goal is not to get rich, (that is the Koch Brothers goal). Scientists goal is to figure out how we might avoid going the way of the dinosaur in a couple of centuries because of our own stupid action (or inaction).

Sure if the Earth tilts on its axis all of a sudden thats 'natural' and we can't do anything about it. We can do something about poisoning ourselves though.

thanks for playing along with Al Gore guys.

Thanks for playing along with the Koch Brothers, guys.

a reply to: rnaa

HA! You insist on ignoring the fact i want to end the Koch Bro's as well as the Soro's oligarch's control of the information and some of you on this thread just keep plodding along like it is I who wants it. READ this point one more time. COAL AND OIL ARE BAD we rape the land and pollute for it. CO2 is insignifcant compared to Uranium and Mercury to our survival and the health of the bios.
Quit insisting that i am helping the enemy's of this planet who destroy her. All while, you help the biggest scam that mankind knows according the the European papers. It makes you look bad and who has it really helped when you do this?

a reply to: mbkennel

You totally missed the point, or you moved the goalpost.

The original post I responded to made the claim that that one graph said it all, basically. I merely pointed out (read the sub-thread again) that conclusions could not be made from that one graph.

Leave the strawmen in the cornfield.

Never, not once, have I claimed that co2 produced by man is being "magically sequestered". Any assertion of such is disingenuous at the very least and ignorant as hell at the worst.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Increasing biomass as a consequence of increased temperature would be a positive feedback system, which would fit ever increasing CO2.

Like I said, you can assume increased temperatures would lead to increasing biomass if you wish, but why would it increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Increased biomass would result in increased plant decay, hence increased co2. I would not think it would be a significant increase unless we had an outrageous increase in biomass.

Historically there is a 500 year of so cycle of warm and cold.

Not really.

There are various cycles involved in glaciation. Chief is 100k years. There is a cycle that is thought to be 400-450k, related to solar insolation as well.

There is something odd going on with the Milankovich cycles that I am trying to wrap my head around. It could be related to the 400k year cycle. Do not take this as fact, it is not, it is at best worth researching. The cycles are not falling in, as they have during the last 400k years, (or do not seem to be) as one would expect at this point, geologically speaking, to produce a period of global cooling returning the northern hemisphere to a period of glacial growth. It seems that, possibly, the way the cycles are working we are actually in a period that could result in an extra long interglacial period. Would be great for the human race, if true...
Based on the typically observed 20k, 40k and 100k cycles we would be relatively close to the point at which the earth would begin cooling. However the 400k cycle may be a pause, of sorts, in the way the 3 previously described cycles coincide.
I am still researching it. I picked up the observation/opinion from a discussion by geologists relating to milankovitch cycles and there are some who believe this interglacial could last another 50k years. I am looking into it, for my own curiosity, but have found very little so far to present.

Sorry, Phage, I found your "not really" answer to be insufficient and it let me slip in the additional information.

a reply to: rnaa

I am going to ask a simple question:

Why are current measurements of atmospheric co2 levels being sourced at an active volcano? I can understand using the geology of the area to measure/extrapolate co2 level changes over the last 20k years or so, but why the current measurements coming from there?

a reply to: bbracken677

Sorry, Phage, I found your "not really" answer to be insufficient and it let me slip in the additional information.

So, you think there is a 500 year cycle like the person I replied to said?

Why are current measurements of atmospheric co2 levels being sourced at an active volcano?

That is a single location (there are others) and it is used because the recording has been continuous since 1955. The current eruption of Kilauea (which is not Mauna Loa) began in 1983. Do you see a spike in 1983? Do you have some reason to think that Kilauea has been steadily increasing it's output of CO2 since the eruption started? What about that C13/C12 problem?

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

One: I said insufficient, not incorrect. I just provided some information, is that problematic?

There is a roughly 400ky cycle, a 100ky cycle, a 40ky cycle and a roughly 21ky cycle that comprise the Milankovich cycles. The 400ky cycle is a bit more tenuous and requires more study.

Thanks for the reply re: location of modern co2 readings. I questioned it, since Mauna Loa is active. As we all know, volcanoes outgass co2 directly into the atmosphere. Seems like if one wanted the most accurate readings to apply to a global phenomena that one would not reference co2 levels at an active volcano. In the case of Antarctic ice core readings, there are a limited number of spots one may get continuous climate data that dates back to 450kya. In the case of modern co2 readings there are any number of locations one could take the readings from.

The question was why, I believe your answer regarding the continuous readings since '55 is likely the correct answer. At least I hope that is why.

On ATS I seldom ask a question that I do not already know the answer to, but that was one. Thanks!

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Increasing biomass as a consequence of increased temperature would be a positive feedback system, which would fit ever increasing CO2.

Like I said, you can assume increased temperatures would lead to increasing biomass if you wish, but why would it increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Increased biomass would result in increased plant decay, hence increased co2. I would not think it would be a significant increase unless we had an outrageous increase in biomass.

The increase in biomass would be a compounding accumulation, like compound interest, it would increase in very small increments. Basically, every time something dies, its increased biomass, compared to its predecessors, would cause a proportional increase in atmospheric CO2. Like compound interest, the original amount will double and more until the warming stops.

Historically there is a 500 year of so cycle of warm and cold.

Not really.

There are various cycles involved in glaciation. Chief is 100k years. There is a cycle that is thought to be 400-450k, related to solar insolation as well.

There is something odd going on with the Milankovich cycles that I am trying to wrap my head around. It could be related to the 400k year cycle. Do not take this as fact, it is not, it is at best worth researching. The cycles are not falling in, as they have during the last 400k years, (or do not seem to be) as one would expect at this point, geologically speaking, to produce a period of global cooling returning the northern hemisphere to a period of glacial growth. It seems that, possibly, the way the cycles are working we are actually in a period that could result in an extra long interglacial period. Would be great for the human race, if true...
Based on the typically observed 20k, 40k and 100k cycles we would be relatively close to the point at which the earth would begin cooling. However the 400k cycle may be a pause, of sorts, in the way the 3 previously described cycles coincide.
I am still researching it. I picked up the observation/opinion from a discussion by geologists relating to milankovitch cycles and there are some who believe this interglacial could last another 50k years. I am looking into it, for my own curiosity, but have found very little so far to present.

Sorry, Phage, I found your "not really" answer to be insufficient and it let me slip in the additional information.

I've heard a an aside, from various geologists and weather people, that the next glaciation is not expected for thousands of years. I've never heard why. I have aslo never heard a complete explanation as to why we had the Glaciation Periods in the first place.

The AGW people don't have enough knowledge to be sure about AGW.

a reply to: Phage

I missed the last sentence: What about the c12/c13 problem?

What about it?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: rnaa

I am going to ask a simple question:

Why are current measurements of atmospheric co2 levels being sourced at an active volcano? I can understand using the geology of the area to measure/extrapolate co2 level changes over the last 20k years or so, but why the current measurements coming from there?

Some one, I think jrod or mbkennel, said the off gassing was computed out of the numbers.

AGW is not big on unaltered data.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

When more biomass decomposes, more CO2 is produced,

Plants turn CO2 into biomass. CO2 from the atmosphere. When that biomass decomposes it releases that CO2. There is no net change.

TBE1 decomposes into more CO2 than TBE0 because has more chemicals, i.e. the total biomass is larger and so makes a larger total planetary CO2 while decomposing.

No. The carbon (C) and oxygen(O) which make up CO2 originate and return to the atmosphere. We are not concerned with "more chemicals", just two elements and one compound of them.

Most carbon in plants comes from CO2 gas, but plants absorb almmost anything that is dissolved in water close to their roots. Bicarbonate or various organic compounds are taken into the plant by passive diffusion and could be assimilated during respiration. Although this amount would be very small it would accumulate, as long as the total plant growth world wide was increasing. The larger the plant, the greater the surface area for diffusion.


However, I was thinking of plants in the broadest sense, to include fungi, molds, bacteria, archaea, algae, and probably others.

There are approximately 5×10^30 bacteria on Earth,[6] forming a biomass which exceeds that of all plants and animals...
...Carbon metabolism in bacteria is either heterotrophic, where organic carbon compounds are used as carbon sources or autotrophic, meaning that cellular carbon is obtained by fixing carbon dioxide.
en.wikipedia.org...

All of the lower orders of life are essentially chemical machines and are much more sensitive to temperature than macroscopic life forms. An increase in temperature would tend to increase the rates of reaction in their metabolism.

Maybe all of the CO2 increase is from a more complete decomposition of material that has been biologically dormant since the last arm period, plus the addition of new carbon from inorganically equipped organisms.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Increasing biomass as a consequence of increased temperature would be a positive feedback system, which would fit ever increasing CO2.

Like I said, you can assume increased temperatures would lead to increasing biomass if you wish, but why would it increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Constantly increasing biomass. A positive feedback resulting in more biomass, that is, a greater total mass of biological chemicals on Earth with each life cycle. When more biomass decomposes, more CO2 is produced, which facilitates a higher total biomass on Earth than the previous iteration, which after decomposition puts more CO2 into the air, which causes another higher total biomass on Earth etc...

This makes no sense. Biological organisms NOT called homo sapiens do not insert carbon from sources not previously in the biosphere. You think that when they grow the carbon is magically created from nothing. It isn't.

Total Biomass on Earth0 + increased heat = total biomass on Earth1

And that means more carbon in biological material and less carbon in the atmosphere. See, we already measure this. The Northern Hemisphere has more land area than the Southern. So in Northern Hemisphere growing season (summer), plants grow and they take CO2 OUT of the the atmosphere and we see this in the CO2 record. In the winter they decay and CO2 comes out of the biosphere and back into the atmosphere.

Without human influence this would be a sinusoidal oscillation with no trend.

TBE0 < TBE1

TBE1 decomposes into more CO2 than TBE0 because has more chemicals, i.e. the total biomass is larger and so makes a larger total planetary CO2 while decomposing.

So it's net growing and net decomposing at the same time?

a reply to: mbkennel

Top soil has carbon in it. Microorganisms can turn that carbon into CO2.

Warming makes the microorganisms more active and so more CO2 is put into the air.

Just one of the possible contributors to increasing CO2.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Top soil has carbon in it.

Guess where that carbon in the topsoil came from.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

You totally missed the point, or you moved the goalpost.

The original post I responded to made the claim that that one graph said it all, basically. I merely pointed out (read the sub-thread again) that conclusions could not be made from that one graph.

Leave the strawmen in the cornfield.

Previously you were talking about science, and now you restrict to

Never, not once, have I claimed that co2 produced by man is being "magically sequestered". Any assertion of such is disingenuous at the very least and ignorant as hell at the worst.

Let's get back to the facts at hand.

Previously you intimated that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere (as in now, today in the Earth system, not hypothetical) was not a result of human activity but the result of oceans getting warmer from some other cause and emitting CO2. You said that it was a matter of simple physics.

Q: Do you stand by that or not?

Then I posted evidence showing increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere simultaneous with increased carbon in the ocean. You answered that the graph "alone" does not mean there is a causality. The causality comes from the nature of chemistry when there are different partial pressures.

So back to the original physical question.

What is your position on the original physical question: Is the ocean, today, net emitting, or net absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere? [/b]

Is the human emission (which you apparently deny is being sequestered in large measure from your last message) significantly increasing net atmospheric CO2, or not?