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.

 

Co2 levels are not going down.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Still that would be like saying, I smoke and drink like crazy (and anything that will shortening my life) since I will die anyways, so just lets speed up the progress very fast and don't worry about it at all.

Our lives are short, our own species ain't that long around really, and how we threat this planet and other species on this planet, the Q will we (humans) be really still around for a long time. Just place your bets.




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Maybe the ocean is not as big a co2 sink anymore

Acidifying



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I never needed convincing. Even before I delved deeper into climate science, it was like... well yeah, science.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Thank you for taking it personal - a reply which was not even directed at you.

Water vapour forcing:

Water vapour is a greenhoue gas - orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2. It traps heat. This causes ocean to evaporate. More water vapour gets in the atmosphere. As a side-effect, CO2 trapped in the ocean gets released. CO2 rises.

There you go, the answer to why CO2 continues rising independently from our efforts.


Except this isn't true right now. Experimental evidence shows that CO2, in carbonic acid, is increasing in the oceans, not decreasing.

The partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the atmosphere than in the oceans hence carbon enters the ocean, increasing acidity.

That's because there is a separate source of CO2, from burning fossil fuels.

edit on 6-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Right. If I don't place ALL my faith in AGW, then obviously I am biased.


You don't need faith. You need understanding, and understanding that you don't know as much as the people who have worked on it for decades.



This just like saying, if I don't place ALL my faith in Jesus, then obviously I hate christians.


No one is not like the other.

One has extensive, cross-confirmed experimental and theoretical evidence and is derived from universal laws of physics.

edit on 6-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

What causes oceans to evaporate? Oceans are rising, not declining. They are simultaneously heating at increasingly greater depths with this rise.


The paradox is on your side too. If CO2 creates a positive feedback, it should evaporate more water because of the heat generated by the greenhouse effect.


Indeed it does.


How do you propose to solve this?


By banning mining and burning of coal.


edit on 6-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   
That graph shows CO2 at less than half of one percent, why all the fuss? in any case, CO2 is what all plants need, more CO2, more plant, plus so many volcanoes blowing their tops these days, I would think CO2 levels would go up!
Green house growers in America even install Methane burners to increase CO2 inside their green house's.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Co2 isn't rocket science, you can calculate easily how much heat will be trapped, less sun will be reflected back in space, and so more warmth will be trapped in our atmosphere increasing global temperatures.
Then when ice caps start melting or perma frost, certain feedback loops starts kicking in. Like more often a El Nino because of increased ocean temperatures, release of methane which lays below ice / permafrost and what that get released in the atmosphere, even wayyy more heat will be trapped which is far more potent than co2 causing a rapid climate change.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: eisegesis

I never needed convincing. Even before I delved deeper into climate science, it was like... well yeah, science.


That sounds an awful lot like faith to me.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Yes, I know, I did not have the time to fully unravel the finer mechanism - my posts were indeed an oversimplified view on the matter. I was busy dodging personal attacks from the very one to which I was attempting to explain the process.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No it doesn't. My statement reflects that a basic understanding of science ought to tell you that CO2 raises temperature.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

No it doesn't. My statement reflects that a basic understanding of science ought to tell you that CO2 raises temperature.


Actually, that is exactly what I am saying.

A basic understanding of science could not provide any substantial conclusions and an extensive understanding of science tends to raise significant concerns about the legitimacy of the claims made by eco-totalitarians.

Without the knowledge to confirm or refute a conclusion, one cannot be in support of any claim for any reason other than faith.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

No it doesn't. My statement reflects that a basic understanding of science ought to tell you that CO2 raises temperature.


Actually, there isn't room for opinion on this, it's all facts.



This is the global temperature over a 10 year period. If you look at the graph in the OP, you notice a very steady increase of CO2. Now I don't claim to know anything at all about this, other than looking at data. if you look at the data here, it doesn't seem as if temperature follows CO2. Or is the data wrong somewhere?
edit on 7-8-2015 by network dude because: fixed time frame



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
That graph shows CO2 at less than half of one percent, why all the fuss?


Because that amount is quantitatively significant when you count its effects. After all, the CFC's which caused global problems in the ozone layer in the polar regions had far, far smaller concentrations than half of one percent. And after human regulatory action, it's starting to get better, and the physics is proceeding as the supposedly reviled computer models predict.


in any case, CO2 is what all plants need, more CO2, more plant, plus so many volcanoes blowing their tops these days, I would think CO2 levels would go up!


It's not so simple. Many important agricultural crops require certain night-time temperatures---too hot and they grow poorly. Over the planet, agriculture is 99% outdoors and depends heavily on H2O patterns and that is changing substantially from the climate change arising from global warming.

And the rise is nearly all fossil fuels, not volcanoes. They've checked that, years and years ago.


Green house growers in America even install Methane burners to increase CO2 inside their green house's.


Just because it's a good idea in a greenhouse for growers doesn't mean it's a good idea for the planet.
edit on 7-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
if you look at the data here, it doesn't seem as if temperature follows CO2. Or is the data wrong somewhere?


Or your interpretation is wrong somewhere. The people who do it for a living look over hundreds of different data sets measuring related but not identical physical parameters, not one, processed different ways, and they check all the assumptions and technical details. (Oh wait, is that graph from Roy Spencer? In the past, he's been found to have failed to do certain calibration corrections in the satellite instruments and data and when that is done the data turned out to be more consistent with others, showing warming. That doesn't mean it's the case here but there's a history of making errors towards the less-warming side)

See for instance the Berkeley Earth project lead by R Mueller. (In a nutshell a formerly skeptical physicist engaged in a substantial project to do a huge data re-analysis and computation from scratch (raw data) redeveloping all algorithms. The net result was that the climatologists were quantitatively correct, and moreover the rise in heat can only be attributed to increased greenhouse gases in the majority.)

Another assumption is that where you are measuring is where the heat is going. It appears to be predominantly going into oceans. Oceans cover 70% of the surface and more importantly they are "physical integrators" with large heat capacity and thus the data is less susceptible to noise from short-term fluctations of atmospheric conditions and better measures truly global influences.

I've reposted this link many times, and there is little rebuttal: www.nodc.noaa.gov...

It's similar to the ocean acidification problem: even if the oceans absorb all the extra heat and carbon, in itself, that's a huge climate change problem.

Also see:

www.realclimate.org... wpmp_tp=2

tamino.wordpress.com...



edit on 7-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

OK. I objected because extrapolation from true but irrelevant science experiments (if you heat up a fixed thing of water it may release some CO2) is often used as disinformation by denialists with malevolent intent to confuse people.

It gives the naive reader an easy way to hang their emotionally preferred outcome (people don't have to change any behaviors) by giving the incorrect impression that the rise in CO2 is out of man's control when that's all false.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.

edit on 7-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
The people who do it for a living look over hundreds of different data sets measuring related but not identical physical parameters, not one, processed different ways, and they check all the assumptions and technical details.

This is an ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) logical fallacy.




Another assumption is that where you are measuring is where the heat is going. It appears to be predominantly going into oceans. Oceans cover 70% of the surface and more importantly they are "physical integrators" with large heat capacity and thus the data is less susceptible to noise from short-term fluctations of atmospheric conditions and better measures truly global influences.


On that topic - you claimed earlier that ocean could not release CO2 when warmed, because said oceans are actually getting more acid.

I have two counterarguments to that.

-As you no doubt know, carbonic acid is created by the combination of CO2 with water. Since CO2 takes liquid phase at an extremely low temperature, on Earth CO2 can hardly exist in any other form than gas - hence, carbonic acid is extremely unstable and will quickly separate back into H2O+CO2. Your claim that oceans cannot emit CO2 during forcing is proving to be quite extraordinary. I agree that pressure can help trapping the CO2 in the deep, but this mechanism would fail for the surface water. Could you elaborate?

-I do think that there is a thing called acidic rain. Perhaps the CO2 emitted by the ocean gets into the atmosphere, and, from there, precipitated along with water back into the ocean during rainfalls, compensating the ocean's loss of acidity? After all, oceans do cover quite a large area of the Earth.



edit on 7-8-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Wait, you are really claiming that bodies of water cannot release CO2?!

What happens when you pour yourself a glass of carbonated water, mbkennel?



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne
You are misrepresenting what he wrote....strawman fallacy.

We are only taking baby steps because the general public is not aware and vulnerable to getting hoodwinked by the political and emotional arguments that we are bombarded with in these discussions.

The experts have a consensus on man's role in the rising CO2.

The only debate is what are we going to do about it.


edit on 7-8-2015 by jrod because: add



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: mbkennel

Yes, I know, I did not have the time to fully unravel the finer mechanism - my posts were indeed an oversimplified view on the matter. I was busy dodging personal attacks from the very one to which I was attempting to explain the process.



Uh, you were offended by misperceiving my initial post, then went on the defense and tried to attacking me, all the while making a mess of the whole situation. You didn't teach me anything, guy, except that you're willing to twist and manipulate at the expense of keeping to the truth.

Sheesh, are you truly incapable of admitting fault or something?




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join