It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And do you think if your body contained .034% Plutonium it would be OK. Absolutely NOT you would be stone dead.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.
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.
No, not in this case. this concerns the measurement form one particular station. Again, I quote the article:
I believe that was pretty clear. this is an observation at one station.
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.
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".
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.
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).
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by malcr
I do not believe you just likened CO2 to Plutonium.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by freeusfromthematrix
I wish people concerned about co2 would put that same amount of energy into stopping the wars coming up that will fill the atmosphere with radiation from nuclear bombs going off.
CO2 level is increasing at all stations. Humans are producing a billions of tonnes of CO2 which is causing the yearly increases.
The interest and the finding that required 'further analysis' was why the rate of increase was higher for a time. However, I think it was obvious that your take was a little bit 'different'.
'Any atmospheric build-up'?
That's crazy. The increases in CO2 found at Mauna Loa are readily verified by numerous other stations. You are conveying a rather fundamental misunderstanding here. And the 'same phenomena being touted by Gore and his ilk' part rather solidifies your angle here.
I think the phenomena being touted is the long-term effect of human-sourced CO2 increases.
Yeah, I know. The data is from Mauna Loa. The data from elsewhere is very, very similar. The main thrust of the article was the interest in why the rate of increase was found to be higher for the short period preceding the report. The rate went back to a more 'normal' rate of increase not long after.
Yeah, Mauna Loa. The station that because you think is far from human populations must be measuring volcanic gases, rather than increases from human activity. Even though stations all over the place are showing the same trends.
Because we are releasing twice the amount of CO2 required into the atmosphere, it is not very difficult to understand the cause of the CO2 increases. So, some easy major explanations of this change in rate - we were releasing more CO2, the biosphere was, or the CO2 being released was being less absorbed by the biosphere.
The further analysis is related to why the rate increased. The effeciency of biospheric carbon sinks is also of considerable interest. Thus, perhaps the rate increase was due to intermittent falls in the ability of sinks to absorb CO2. If this became permanent it would be bad news, worse than us releasing CO2 at higher rates - as we will probably do this anyway in time, being all myopic and that. But once the sinks reduce absorption?
Not obviously 'advanced technology' at all. 'Complex biological process' would perhaps be a better term.
Anyway, yeah. Yet CO2 levels are increasing and have been for quite a while. I'm glad you have faith in the ability of nature to ensure humans are comfortable. If the species alive during the PETM had the same ability to hold this faith, I guess they would have got a shock.
Took tens of thousands of years during the PETM for the 'self-correcting' mechanism to get back to baseline.
CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. It is absorbed by the biosphere. Alterations in either would influence the CO2 level.
However, we are still releasing twice the amount of CO2 required to account for the yearly increases. The biosphere is removing the remainder - your little green friends and the oceans. Indeed, the oceans are the largest sink, but as they get warmer...
Nah, Mauna Loa is like the superstar of atmospheric stations, it always gets the attention. Just the way it is.
That the overall rising CO2 levels are human-sourced is barely questionable. The short-term change in rate is harder to explain - hence why the were cautious in doing so. They were aked to explain why in one year there was a step of 3ppm, from 376 to 379ppm. That was higher than the long-term trend of around 1.5ppm to 2ppm. They gave some cautious explanations. That was a few years back. It's old news.
Now we up above 384ppm. If you read the entry at Tamino's blog, you would see that the rate of increase is increasing.
Human CO2 emissions are without doubt the cause of the long-term CO2 increases. As to the short-term change in rate - could be numerous reasons - they provided some, but expressed caution. Which is cool. Such short-term variations are always going to be difficult to interpret.
But CO2 is increasing, the rate of increase is increasing, and with us releasing more CO2 than is required to explain it? Well...you'd have to be wacky to think this is something other than human caused.
You'd have to think that all the CO2 we release just magically disappears, and that some other phenomena is at work. Indeed, it only started to work during the same period we started to burn all this carbon locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.
I think he was more pointing out the silliness of arguing from small numbers.
"OMG, CO2 CONCENTRATION IS REALLY REALLY SMALL!!!!
Therefore it can't be a problem."
Rather silly. But I don't expect much better from that dude.
I have referred to one article in this entire thread, the one which stated that there was an abnormal increase at one observatory, and which then went on to discuss, at length, how dangerous such a buildup of this naturally-occurring gas is and how humans are responsible for it, while completely ignoring the fact that huge amounts can come from volcanoes, which the observatory in question is sitting atop of.
This is sensationalized reporting at its finest. If the article were truthful, it would have reported that there are multiple possibilities for the readings other than the human burning of organic material which was not taking place in the vicinity of the observatory.
What I don't get is your statement that human life could not have existed at some time in history, due to CO2 levels. Firstly, what could have possibly caused high CO2 levels if humans weren't around to burn fossil fuels? And secondly, how exactly did life survive if humans (which are alive, using the same biological processes animals have always used) couldn't have survived?
I would hazard to state here, without the benefit of actual calculations, that the amount of CO2 absorbed from seawater by a heat/CO2-induced rise in oceanic flora growth increase would more than offset any temperature-related oceanic CO2 release.
This relating of CO2, which is inert, to plutonium, which is radioactive, is a tactic being tried by quite a few of the Global Warming doom-sayers. Therefore I will point out the flaws in those arguments whenever I get the opportunity.
I read it. It's a blog, although admittedly, he has done some detailed work in it
Heh, redneck. I'll try to point it out again. The measurements from Mauna Loa take into account the fact it lies near a volcano.
It is placed high above the thermal layer, measurements are taken when the winds are coming off the ocean. Indeed, there are many days when measurments are not entered into the record due to chance of contamination. The measurements from Mauna Loa are entirely comparable to all the other stations, and would be cross referenced.
If you want to complain about reporting of science, then, cool. I agree it tends to be pretty naff. But you are going well-beyond that here. The scientists in the report were cautious in interpreting it, and so they should have been.
The volcanic issue is just a big stinky red-herring, but you just keep wafting it around. And again you bring out the blah about burning stuff near the observatory - this is not what they would even want to measure. The amount of CO2 from volcanoes is negligible compared to our yearly emissions.
CO2 is building up, if it continues to do so it will have profound effects on climate, and the CO2 increase is without doubt predominately a result of human activity. The volcano stuff is just obfuscation. 650,000 years. CO2 levels have never been this high. Volcanoes have been around for a while, humans burning carbon ain't.
I never said that humans couldn't have existed due to high CO2 levels. They just never existed during the PETM (Permian-Eocene Thermal maximum; 50 odd million years ago). Although the extinctions that resulted from the PETM event did aid the evolution of mammals, made lots of room and opportunities for new species.
One hypothesis for the PETM event is that some event caused an initial warming, this resulted in the clathrate gun going 'bang', and methane being released slowly over a few thousand years, resulting in CO2 and methane ramping temps up to around 4-6'C higher.
Warm the oceans enough, and we could go 'bang' again. Hopefully, these ocean flora you put your faith in can perform faster miracles this time, it all took a while during the PETM (30,000-150,000 years).
What about the CO2 the ocean would no longer absorb from our emissions? It could release what it had absorbed, and also no longer absorb the 50%ish it is at the moment...
So, without any real analysis you apply the same thinking from terrestrial plants saving the day, to oceanic flora saving the day. Heh, lets hope they can also handle the pH changes and potential changes to the ecosystem, just don't expect any help from the benthic foraminfera - they didn't like the PETM event. The understanding of what will happen to ocean ecosystems is pretty poor (increase temps, lower pH).
Perhaps you should pray. I'll think. Considering it will all be a big risky experiment, we could do with the help.
Heh, 'Look CO2 is really really small, it's really really small number, plants EAT it! Therefore we can ignore it'. It's complete tripe.
The analogy depends on the fact that CO2 is not 'inert' in the sense that we are talking about a gas that is a GHG in the context of climate change. It is a component that is important, and even at 380ppm can account for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect of this planet.
This gas in the really small percentage it is provides 9-26% of the radiative effect that ensures we don't freeze. Double it, and it will make the planet warmer. That's basic well-understood physics.
Might be due to him being a statistician specialising in time-series data analysis.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Thank you for your patience. My next question is, if the volcanic emissions are taken into account, why is this not mentioned in the article, nor can I find any data from the volcano emissions themselves?
They are comparable to other stations, except during this one event, which we know from your post was temporary. We both agree to this point, except for the single article which indicates an abnormally high reading compared with other stations. Prevailing winds would serve to give a more accurate reading if they are coming from well-mixed areas, but apparently, in this one case, they were not.
This is supposition to show the possibilities that this one incident could be attributable to. I am not suggesting that CO2 levels are not increasing.
That is exactly what I am complaining about in this thread. This one article, and the obvious bias it is showing. Not once have I said the readings were false, or that CO2 levels are not rising. I simply disagree with the obviously biased reporting of this event, as apparently you do. So why the debate, if we agree that the article was biased?
In reference to the single observation that CO2 levels rose unexpectedly at this one observatory, I expressed reasons why the data might have been contaminated. the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano just seemed to be the most obvious possible cause.
You do believe in review of scientific reports, correct? even if those reviews indicate a possibility that the results might not be in line with the initial reports?
According to ice core data from an Antarctic drill, you are right that CO2 levels are high. I am referencing this graph: www.daviesand.com...
It shows several events during which CO2 levels were approximately as high as present levels. If you will look at the extreme right side (present), you will see that the temperature takes a sudden rise (shown in red). I am curious as to why the CO2 levels did not show that same rise, since they are obviously higher in the atmosphere than the numerical representation at that point, but I will attribute that to a problem with scale.
Your post did implicate that life would have a very hard time surviving. But you are right; there were no humans there.
This takes a bit more of a stretch. The warming we are experiencing is on the order of a degree or two. This is not a massive temperature swing; it is a slow increase, and one that appears (from NOAA) to be decelerating.
The only way the ocean could stop absorbing CO2 is for the water to become saturated with carbonic acid. This can only happen if the flora in it stopped using the CO2. Remember that heat increases the rate of photosynthesis, and therefore increases the rate of CO2 removal from the water. As CO2 is removed from the carbonic ions, more hydroxide (byproduct of that reaction) is available to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The ability to hold CO2 in storage for future use would be curtailed by a tiny amount, yes, due to the increased thermal activity of the hydroxide/carbonate ions, but the use of CO2 by oceanic flora would increase at a much higher rate.
The analysis is from years ago, on a related experiment. What I said (or maybe meant to say?) was, without any calculation. There is a difference.
The pH level due to even a 10C temperature change would be well within the ability of oceanic flora to handle. Oceanic temperatures cover a huge range right now, from 80F+ waters in the Gulf of Mexico, to below-freezing temperatures near the Arctic and Antarctic. Life, both flora and fauna, exist in these waters, all along a temperature range of 80+F. Somehow, worrying about a 1-2 degree change in temperature just doesn't strike me as logical.
I'll make an even better deal. How about we both help the other out. I'll think some as well as pray, and you pray some as well as think.
I like prayer, but I like thinking too. People can do both, you know.
Plants eating CO2 is not completely accurate; it's more of an absorption process. But that's not your point.
The notion that a substance exists in small amounts is relative to the properties of that substance. CO2 is inert to most substances; plutonium is radioactive by itself. The two simply cannot be compared in the context we are discussing.
If you want to state that even small amounts of CO2 are notable, that is one thing. But to state that there is nothing unscientific about comparing concentrations of CO2 and plutonium is simply untrue.
Warmer, probably. The debate is how much warmer. There are many aspects of the biosphere that are not well-understood today.
If we introduce CO2 into the atmosphere, we just raised the CO2 level. That does not mean the temperature will rise. It depends on the mechanisms to offset the CO2 level, the present temperature and composition of the atmosphere, and any side effects it may have on the biosphere in general.
I'm stunned at the number of pro-GW people that refuse to acknowledge the ice-age we are still leaving. It occurred 100,000 years ago (if you didn't know). The Earth was solid ice in Winter, to the equator. This is well known.
History has shown this has all occurred before, and history has a habit of repeating itself. Now is no different.
You have some now. But I would have thought it was all rather obvious.
Well, it is well-mixed, but there are still variations according to location. Hence if you compare Mauna Loa to South Pole, you get a big seasonal variation at Mauna not present at the Pole.
I don't know if it was biased. Just another pretty naff report of science.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I accept that all data is less than perfect, and all findings are tentative and open to change with new evidence.
It actually shows that CO2 never rises much above 300ppm for over 400,000 years (i.e., red is CO2). Through numerous ice-age cycles, all those volcanoes going boom etc, not once.
I will agree with this; any rapid eco-change would be disastrous for societal status-quos.
I think humans could easily survive at 1000ppm. In some way. But really society needs a degree of stability. Rapid changes in climate, with the resultant changes in agriculture, ecosytems etc etc ain't ideal for a fairly settled society.
we are only 100ppm into the increase. Give us time. We have enough carbon to burn, and we are emitting it at rates comparable to the PETM. In fact, I think we are going faster (I'd have to check the numbers again to be really sure).
Heat also decreases solubility of gases. The oceans already appear to be absorbing less CO2.. I don't think it would stop absorbing altogether - as it would still cycle, but it will reduce absorption and might emit more. Essentially becoming a source rather than sink. The cold oceans absorb, the warm oceans emit. As cold oceans warm, and warm oceans get warmer...well.
It's not due to the temperature change, but due to CO2 levels in the ocean. It acidifies it. This would likely reduce the ability of some calcifying organisms to survive, and potentially also effect some photosynthetic organisms. The ecosystem would change, and it could happen rapdily. And adaptation takes time.
the point is is that in each context the substance can have negative effects. Plutonium might result in catastrophic genetic changes and grow you an extra foot, CO2 could result in rapid and catastrophic changes in climate and ecosystems and grow us a hothouse world.
True. But various strands of evidence support the contention that climate sensitivity is of the order 2-4.5'C. Thus, for each doubling of CO2, we get a best estimate of 3'C of warming. We could easily have a couple of those. And 3'C wouldn't be good, 6'C would be very bad.
I agree that the biosphere will respond. The evidence just suggests it won't be in anyway a saviour. If it took over at best 35,000 years to respond to the carbon injection during the PETM, the plants and algae ain't gonna stop another 6'C rise any time soon. We could have such a toasty environment for quite a chain of junior rednecks
IIRC, during the PETM 2000ishGtC of carbon was emitted over a period of 1000ish years. That would be 2GtC a year. We are going at around 7-8GtC per year at the moment, I think. Given, it was probably mostly methane release during the PETM, but that has a short half-life and decomposes to CO2. We could do enough CO2 for a 6'C rise easy enough. Just give us time...