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 buildup accelerating in atmosphere

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322

thank USa for the all evils on this planet

USa no.1 imperialist, no1. polluter of planet, no.1 for carbon emissions , no.1 for global warming

no.1 for fascism , no.1 for external debt ,public debt

no.1 in attacking and destroying other nations and killing innocents and poor helpless children

no.1 in propaganda


true as USa has no mercy for third world , it loves to pollute , and then denies that Global warming is due to carbon emissions , whose biggest culprit is USA

[edit on 19-8-2008 by manson_322]

whatever man, obviously u ain't heard of what China has going on, and i woun't even validate u by giving the link, if u won't reserch so u can make a reasonable statement, u will not get taken seriously here, we tend to know what we are talking about sometimes.
i tell ya one thing, my country DOES suck, but it is still the most free nation in the world...except canada....but screw those leaf blowers
kiddin, i was born in canada and i will move back before the US gets into a war w/ IRAN because that's ehen a draft will be called. AND i will not risk my life so my son can grow up w/ out a dad because he went to fight for the people of ISrael....i look out for my own ass, and mine is going to canada.




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I'm just curious why you would fear for your safety for linking to a newspaper article available to absolutely everyone. I think paranoid is a way of life on these boards.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Originally posted by TheRedneck
The answer, the only reasonable answer, is that this is simply a CO2 leak from within the volcano. It hs nothing to do with Kyoto, fossil fuels, or human population. It has everything to do with natural forces within the earth.

So I say, let's make volcanoes illegal.


TheRedneck


You do know, of course, Redneck, that measurements are made at dozens of stations around the earth. They all show the same. Moreover, we actually release twice as much CO2 required to account for the yearly rises. The rest is absorbed by the biosphere.

We can't go releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 every year and expect nothing to happen.

I also like all the standard deniers canards collecting here, great stuff.




[edit on 20-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
This is all BS to me.


Good to point that out, however, knowing that it could have saved you typing it



I've seen records showing that for my region at least, CO2 has done nothing but rise for the last 40 years, whilst it has only gone and got cooler during the period.


CO2:



GHGs: 2000 years.



Temps:





Temps: 2000 years





According to ice cores picked in Antarctica, CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now.


Ni!

400,000 years (Vostok):



and the EPICA 650,000 data shows the same.


QUESTION: If CO2 is the root of all global warming evil, WHY ARE WE IN AN ACKNOWLEDGED COOLING PERIOD?


Don't think we are. At best, temps have levelled for a while.


I'm sick of this crap. DO YOUR RESEARCH PEOPLE. NONE OF THIS IS NEW. WE ARE NOT CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE IT IS A **NATURAL EVENT**!!!


Yeah, crap research really sucks.


FACT: There was more ice at the North Pole last winter than any climate models predicted, and more ice than last year.


I think the longer term trends might be more informative.

Arctic ice extent:




FACT: It was reported earlier this year that there might be no ice THIS YEAR at the north pole (this was advertised on several news stations here in the UK). There was more ice at the North Pole this year than last year.


heh. Wouldn't we wait till after the summer data to get all excited? Considering 2007 saw the lowest ice range reliably measured, wouldn't be hard to have more ice.


FACT: As the climate warms, you will actually get LESS severe storms, as storms rely on differential temperature to work. So far this year there have been less major storms in the US than by this time last year.


Heh.

You like to cherrypick and compare very small trends. Five hours ago was warmer than now, the end is nigh!onetyeleven1!!


FACT: Less people will die from hypothermia as a result of warming.


Heh, and more will die of heatstroke.


FACT: The worlds coverage in plants will INCREASE. It will be possible to grow foods further North than at present.


And probably less able to grow crops elsewhere.


FACT: At the same latitude, you have desert (Sahara) and rain forest (Amazon). Any climatologists wish to explain?? Thought not...


Heh, scraping the barrel now.


FACT: Nature will adapt. We will be fine. Nature will be fine. It survived the ice-age we're leaving, it will survive now.


Not sure about whether we will be fine - depends on how you define 'fine', I think a degree of stability is optimal. But, yeah, I'm sure humans and nature will be around for a while.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

You do know, of course, Redneck, that measurements are made at dozens of stations around the earth. They all show the same. Moreover, we actually release twice as much CO2 required to account for the yearly rises. The rest is absorbed by the biosphere.

We can't go releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 every year and expect nothing to happen.

Yes, I realize this. I also realize that we release quite a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere. But this article is not about those myriad of stations recording temperature, it is about one which is reporting a higher increase. That one happens to be over an active volcano, and away from population centers. Yet, the scientists are apparently quite puzzled as to where the CO2 is coming from.


Now, if you want to talk about the other stations, I will be glad to accommodate you. But the article referenced by this thread is about Mauna Loa, and my post was likewise was in context with that.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
OK - one more fact for you:

THE CONCENTRATION OF CO2 IN THE WHOLE OF EARTHS ATMOSPHERE IS 0.034%

(I'll say that again in case you missed it):

THE CONCENTRATION OF CO2 IN THE WHOLE OF EARTHS ATMOSPHERE IS 0.034%

Do you honestly think that adding a tiny bit more to that is really going to make any difference, distributed over the entire volume of Earths atmosphere?

I'm not one for polluting, but that's not what we're talking about here. CO2 is a requirement for life, and even if we burned all the available fossil fuels RIGHT NOW, we wouldn't make any difference (except locally as it takes time for the gases to distribute around the planet).

[edit on 20-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
That article is from 2005. Do we have any updates since then? I dont see any here.

What I know is Granny has problems breathing at night and over 3000 feet elev.

Nothing bothers me.


sarc



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
If you tax the volcanos in geothermal energy units, then you could offset the carbon with the energy. All you need to do then is find enough jerks to pay double the energy value for the free energy to offset the carbon tax value of the energy. You will have successfully taxed people for volcanic clouds if you do that. The only limit is that volcanos are not consistant enough.

To guarantee continued growth of profit from volcanos, you need to nuke the crust of the earth near a tectonic plate every now and again, to keep it going. But with a little creative book keeping you could find a way to tax them for the nuke testing and recoup the investment and maintain a growth curve until a continent slips under or flips over.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, I realize this. I also realize that we release quite a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere. But this article is not about those myriad of stations recording temperature, it is about one which is reporting a higher increase. That one happens to be over an active volcano, and away from population centers. Yet, the scientists are apparently quite puzzled as to where the CO2 is coming from.


????

I don't think many scientists are that 'puzzled' as to where it's coming from in general. I think they might be more interested as to why we had a 3ppm yearly increase compared with the more recent 1.5-2ishppm/year trend.

which is a bit different from where you insinuations were going.


So we learn here that Mauna Loa is producing background gases. I ask you, what is the single most common background gas produced by a volcano? Carbon dioxide.

If, as is insinuated in the article, the CO2 level is the same phenomena that is being touted by those of Al Gore's ilk, then we would expect a population center to be located close to the observatory. Any quick search on the demographics of Hawaii will show immediately that the population is centered closer to Oahu, the island which is home to Honolulu. The population on the big island of Hawaii, where Mauna Loa and the observatory is located, is very low. This would further suggest that any atmospheric buildup of CO2 observed is coming from a source other than people.

...

The answer, the only reasonable answer, is that this is simply a CO2 leak from within the volcano. It hs nothing to do with Kyoto, fossil fuels, or human population. It has everything to do with natural forces within the earth.


They measure well-mixed gases. They don't want to measure CO2 levels in a city centre, or even near to one. Indeed, the logic here is dreadful. Humans release the gas, it is mixed throughout the troposphere, and you actually noted this in passing. That's what is needed to be measured.

We know where the CO2 is coming from. As I noted, we release twice that required into the atmosphere to account for the yearly atmospheric rises, it doesn't magically disappear.

As to why they were 'puzzled', I think it's better to say they were cautious about making conclusions. It was a bit of a short period increase to get really excited about, I think if we had 3ppm increases for the next 10-20 years we might have been a little more concerned. Indeed, not long after the rate fell back to normal range - so a good lesson is to generally not to be excited about short term variability, but look at the underlying longer term trends.

And as for local sources of CO2, the Mauna data is adjusted. Indeed, the data trend from Mauna Loa is almost identical to those at the south pole and elsewhere. So unless the volcanic gases from Mauna Loa are affecting all stations, not really a factor.

Tamino gives a good analysis of the CO2 data here.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Go back a few more thousand years buddy.

THAT and stop trying to make things look so dramatic (like it seems all the GW proponents do) by having their tick marks so numerically close. That can cause ANY study to seem dramatic.

I wonder how the dinosaurs were able to breathe, how the plants were able to survive, how LIFE WAS ABLE TO FORM, circa pleistocine when CO2 PPM were elevated above 1000.

Apparently you know nothing of true paleoclimatology, nor how to garner the necessary data to make an informed decision.

Get off the GW bandwagon for the "glamor" of being on it, and start dealing with facts. Facts that show ALL sides of an issue. Not just those that support YOUR idea of what it is you want people to hear you say.

AB1



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
flea I assume you were addressing me


I'm just curious why you would fear for your safety for linking to a newspaper article available to absolutely everyone. I think paranoid is a way of life on these boards


If you look at my comments you would notice that I was trying to shine light on the super conspiracy to hide the most dangerous greenhouse gas. The gas I was referring to was hydrogen dioxide (also known as oxygenated dihydrogen monoxide). This secret is closely held and when this information starts to surface the powers to be use the media and their paid partners in science to discredit the informants and have used other strong arm methods to keep this information hidden. They are using CO2 as convenient diversion so they can blame our cars for the coming disasters and give the general population the idea something can be done. These people are quite aware that there is nothing the human race can do to stop the impending doom. People in the know are preparing to relocate to safe zones just prior to the coming disaster and in the mean time they are using the CO2 hoax for their financial gain.
The commander in chief of the movement is none other than AL GORE. He realized after he invented the Internet that there was no money in that. He needed to find something else to fund his jet setting lifestyle. He tried politics for a while and did OK with that. Heck he almost became president. I have it from a reliable anonymous inside source that he was instrumental in starting the environmental movement and was the person who coined the phrase “The Green Movement”. Funny he would chose “green” the color of MONEY to describe this movement? Its obvious with his carbon credit scheme he should profit greatly and stands to become one of the richest in the word, the envy of the likes of Bill Gates.
I better stop typing as I have already said more than should have.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by freeusfromthematrix]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Go back a few more thousand years buddy.


I used the data that was relevant to some of the specious claims from another user.


THAT and stop trying to make things look so dramatic (like it seems all the GW proponents do) by having their tick marks so numerically close. That can cause ANY study to seem dramatic.


Oh noes! Those dreaded 'ticks'.


I wonder how the dinosaurs were able to breathe, how the plants were able to survive, how LIFE WAS ABLE TO FORM, circa pleistocine when CO2 PPM were elevated above 1000.


...

Did I say that life could not survive at CO2 levels of 1000ppm?


Apparently you know nothing of true paleoclimatology, nor how to garner the necessary data to make an informed decision.


What has that got to do with this? So far all I see is essentially naff obfuscatory criticisms. Not that I mind, shows the vacuity of your position.


Get off the GW bandwagon for the "glamor" of being on it, and start dealing with facts. Facts that show ALL sides of an issue. Not just those that support YOUR idea of what it is you want people to hear you say.

AB1


Wow...I like sorta gave the data that another user was claiming showed x, when it really showed y, and all you give is uber-blah.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

These people are quite aware that there is nothing the human race can do to stop the impending doom.

What "doom"?

Tell me, assume the "worst" happens, just what is that?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

I don't think many scientists are that 'puzzled' as to where it's coming from in general. I think they might be more interested as to why we had a 3ppm yearly increase compared with the more recent 1.5-2ishppm/year trend.


The reason for the faster buildup of the most important "greenhouse gas" will require further analysis, the U.S. government experts say.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


which is a bit different from where you insinuations where going.

My insinuation is simply that the CO2 level is being reported to be increasing atop an active volcano, yet most of the article explains how humans are supposedly producing more CO2 than the atmosphere can handle. Not once is the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano mentioned, nor the possibility that it might be leaking CO2. Now there's you a nice little dose of insinuation.


They measure well-mixed gases. They don't want to measure CO2 levels in a city centre, or even near to one. Indeed, the logic here is dreadful. Humans release the gas, it is mixed throughout the troposphere, and you actually noted this in passing. That's what is needed to be measured.

No, not in this case. this concerns the measurement form one particular station. Again, I quote the article:

Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year, say scientists monitoring the sky from this 2-mile-high station atop a Hawaiian volcano.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I believe that was pretty clear. this is an observation at one station.


We know where the CO2 is coming from. As I noted, we release twice that required into the atmosphere to account for the yearly atmospheric rises, it doesn't magically disappear.

If we know where the CO2 is coming from, then why are the 'experts' stating "The reason for the faster buildup of the most important "greenhouse gas" will require further analysis", as I posted above from the article?

And I guess you could say it 'magically' disappears, if you agree with the axiom that "any advanced technology is indistinguishable form magic". Since we still do not know the full mechanics of photosynthesis, it is an obviously advanced technology. We do, however, know that all green plant life absorbs CO2 and emits O2 in the process of growth, aided by solar radiation. We also know that heat and higher CO2 levels directly increase the growth rate of flora, thereby removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In other words, it is a self-correcting mechanism.


As to why they were 'puzzled', I think it's better to say they were cautious about making conclusions. It was a bit of a short period increase to get really excited about, I think if we had 3ppm increases for the next 10-20 years we might have been a little more concerned. Indeed, not long after the rate fell back to normal range - so a good lesson is to generally not to be excited about short term variability, but look at the underlying longer term trends.

Wow, we actually agree on a point, melatonin. I am impressed. I must state however, that the drop back to normal levels also indicates some sort of CO2 release other than industry... and it also indicates as well that this was a localized phenomena, not a measure of "well-mixed gases".


And as for local sources of CO2, the Mauna data is adjusted. Indeed, the data trend from Mauna Loa is almost identical to those at the south pole and elsewhere. So unless the volcanic gases from Mauna Loa are affecting all stations, not really a factor.

So an article obviously enthralled with the notion that the rising CO2 levels are man-made (based on the amount of the story that covered that topic) missed a similar rise at other observatories around the globe? That is either a major blunder on the part of the editors, or it simply isn't true. I will admit it could be the former... but I personally doubt it.

There is no doubt that CO2 levels are increasing slightly. There is no doubt that we have experienced a mild (0.9 degree C) warming trend a decade or so ago. There is no doubt that fossil fuel use is contributing to the rise in CO2 levels to some extent. Where the doubt comes into play is what effect (if any) this will have on the environment. This article, closely examined, shows how obviously some proponents will argue for catastrophic man-made Global Warming due to CO2 emissions from industry, even when a more logical reason for an abnormality is right under their nose (or their observatory).

Edit to add: all excerpts are from the original article in the OP: www.usatoday.com...

TheRedneck


[edit on 20-8-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by freeusfromthematrix
Oh, I've heard of that greenhouse gas!
I think you have the name wrong, it is Dihydrogen Oxide (if I'm not mistaken).

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

What "doom"?

Tell me, assume the "worst" happens, just what is that?


I pointed out the gas that is the real threat. But what I did not tell is that as the greenhouse effect is warming the planet more of this gas is naturally released into the atmosphere. As the gas increases the greenhouse effect causes more warming and the cycle repeats at an ever-increasing rate until we get a runaway heating of the earth burning everything on the surface.

Ya,now if that is not doom then I don’t know what is!



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Oh, I've heard of that greenhouse gas! I think you have the name wrong, it is Dihydrogen Oxide


Thanks for helping me out on this. I am sure most of the smarter people on this page picked up on my dumb mistake.

Yep that is certainly the common name scientists have used for this greenhouse gas but some common people have used the name I referred to as well.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
OK - one more fact for you:

THE CONCENTRATION OF CO2 IN THE WHOLE OF EARTHS ATMOSPHERE IS 0.034%

(I'll say that again in case you missed it):

THE CONCENTRATION OF CO2 IN THE WHOLE OF EARTHS ATMOSPHERE IS 0.034%

Do you honestly think that adding a tiny bit more to that is really going to make any difference, distributed over the entire volume of Earths atmosphere?

I'm not one for polluting, but that's not what we're talking about here. CO2 is a requirement for life, and even if we burned all the available fossil fuels RIGHT NOW, we wouldn't make any difference (except locally as it takes time for the gases to distribute around the planet).

[edit on 20-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

And do you think if your body contained .034% Plutonium it would be OK. Absolutely NOT you would be stone dead.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
snipped lots of information

[edit on 20-8-2008 by melatonin]

I'm afraid you're preaching to the ignorant Melatonin. ATS seems to be a magnet for the GW skeptics ....sorry experts! who love to produce out of context and/or cherry picked examples to back up their stance.

I can understand your frustration but I've given up. Convincing these folks they are wrong is impossible for one very simple reason. They do not BELIEVE the evidence of man made GW no matter how much their is, no matter who produces it and (this is the extraordinary bit) even when their own (US) government admits to lying about man made global warming DUH!!!!. I say US because the majority of skeptics are US based where the government lied (related affect maybe DUH !!!). You have more chance of convincing the Pope that God does not exist.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

ATS seems to be a magnet for the GW skeptics ....
They do not BELIEVE the evidence of man made GW no matter how much their is, no matter who produces it and (this is the extraordinary bit) even when their own (US) government admits to lying about man made global warming DUH!!!!


Ya your government loves you. Its motives should never be questioned. Everything it does is for the good of its people. Your leader is a beacon of light that shines all the way around the world. Gives me goosebumps just thinking about the overwhelming goodness. Why just look at the the wonderful things GWB has done for the people of the world!

Scientists that support global warming should be the only ones to believe. These people no matter their relevance to Climate study should always be believed. Any anti GW scientist that has published their peer-reviewed data should be disregarded because it is not politically correct.

We should all accept what TV news and the mainstream media outlets are telling us without question. These outlets represent the true goodness of American society. They would never lie or distort the facts. They always present both sides of a story because they are totally unbiased. The mainstream media is not to blame when data that contradicts man made global warming is hidden because it is obvious these facts only come from scientists that have to be crackpots.

Nothing that a commoner says about the subject today should be accepted if it does not support the CO2 truth. Common sense is not science and has no place in a thinking persons dialogue.

How could anyone believe anything that is said on this website? I mean there are people here that believe there might be life on other planets and get this! … some of them think the aliens are coming here. I bet some these crazies are wearing tin foil caps right now to protect their minds from the impending alien invasion.

Don't get me started on 911 being a conspiracy! All I really need to do is quote your recent a possibly greatest presidents BILL CLINTON and say "911 an inside job how dare you!!! "

I could not agree with you more malc. Why should reasonable people like you and me listen to anything coming from these ATS loonies?

[edit on 21-8-2008 by freeusfromthematrix]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join