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.
Originally posted audas
This has not occurred yet - and this makes sense as it would not be a gradual process - rather a sudden shut down - which is very worrying as it makes the process that much more dramatic.
Originally posted by audas
Whatever - venus has one of the densest carbon atmospheres - this in turn causes massive global warming on the planet through increased trapped heat from the sun and blah bla bla blah blah case closed.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Originally posted by audas
Whatever - venus has one of the densest carbon atmospheres - this in turn causes massive global warming on the planet through increased trapped heat from the sun and blah bla bla blah blah case closed.
Pardon, but do you not see any other glaring fact staring you in the face?
That Venus is only 67 million miles from the Sun.
The Sun.
Closer to the sun = hotter climate.
Farther away from the Sun = cooler climate.
Venus (close to Sun) is very hot. Earth (farther away from Sun) is comfortably warm. Mars (still farther away from the Sun) is cold as hell. And Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, too.
I'm not seeing any proof from the MMGW quarter that CO2 content has significantly warmed a planet beyond what it should be anyway. From whence do these scientists draw their information? Oh, CO2 has caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
Is that bad? No, it's a natural condition on Venus.
What if proximity to the Sun causes carbon outgassing? That is to say, as a planet warms up from the Sun, the planet's atmospheric carbon levels climb. Is there any evidence of this?
As a matter of fact, yes there is.
Miners in America's Rocky Mountains have known for decades that CO (carbon monoxide) levels flucutuate way down there in the mines. The reason is unknown. But one thing they do know is that when there is a hurricane in the Atlantic, the CO levels down in the mines climb. Very predictably.
Nobody knows why. But I have an idea.
Hurricane activity is a direct indicator of planetary warming and cooling. When the planet is very warm, we have more hurricanes. Hurricanes are dynamic heat-sinks that gather ocean heat and conduct it into the upper atmosphere.
The MMGW fans think more atmospheric carbon = more heat = more hurricanes.
They think.
But what if the solar heating of the earth produces carbon outgassing from the planet's interior? Thus accounting for the rise in CO down in the mines during hurricane season.
NOT that atmospheric carbon causes a build-up of planetary heat but that a build-up of planetary heat causes carbon outgassing.
— Doc Velocity
[edit on 1/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]
Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by audas
Originally posted audas
This has not occurred yet - and this makes sense as it would not be a gradual process - rather a sudden shut down - which is very worrying as it makes the process that much more dramatic.
Well considering this has not occurred yet, and their has been no evidence that it has ever occurred then perhaps the evidence suggests in never will occur.
Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by Doc Velocity
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009)
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase.
Well, considering this study contradicts an important element of computer models that predict global warming, then anything these models predict will be flawed.
Originally posted by audas
Moron - how can you possibly be so moronic ? Venus further away from sun then mercury - venus hotter - stupid, stupid, stupid post.
Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Doc Velocity
Here is another article that says the same thing, but in different terms. It also makes it more clear that what is being said is that the earth's ability to absorb CO2 is much greater than originally thought. It seems that most prediction models assume that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 will decrease as the volume of CO2 goes up. This apparently is not the case, according to this new research:
Controversial New Climate Change Data
What seems most clear from the research is that the earth has mechanisms for dealing with CO2 that are not well understood by science, and since policies are being proposed that are based on this erroneous understanding, it would be best of more research is done and greater understanding is gained before making changes that will have vast sweeping effects throughout the world.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Originally posted by audas
Moron - how can you possibly be so moronic ? Venus further away from sun then mercury - venus hotter - stupid, stupid, stupid post.
I love these little MMGW goons scurrying around, sniffing each other's butts, sniffing my butt, and barking incessantly.
Mercury has no atmosphere, dummy.
So, as carbon-outgassing planets go, we begin at Venus. Mercury does not seem to have a climate nor a carbon problem.
— Doc Velocity
[edit on 1/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]
Originally posted by orionthehunter
The article first quoted stated that "about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere." That sounds like it is growing especially with other articles stating as such underneath the first in the links provided. I'm all in favor of making the planet cooler and reducing the acidity of the oceans. I'm in disagreement over the method the politicians here in the US and elsewhere want to implement. I believe many are unclear since I am as well, what effect decreased solar radiation has on the climate. We are going to be entering a period of decreased solar radiation. I don't want to spend thousands extra on energy costs only to find out a few years later that decreased solar radiation was a bigger factor than the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Of course if the oceans reach a limit and suddenly absorb a lot less carbon dioxide, we should find out pretty quickly what happens when greenhouse gas levels double. A profitable method to remove carbon dioxide and use it might take care of the problem if there is such a method. I believe iron ore powder in the oceans might remove a lot of carbon. I think this whole issue has been too political for years. When scientists disagree, the public won't be too interested in spending a lot of money in fixing something. The exciting thing is, we should all know within the next 20 years if decreased solar radiation was a bigger factor than the greenhouse gas level.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I'm not seeing any proof from the MMGW quarter that CO2 content has significantly warmed a planet beyond what it should be anyway. From whence do these scientists draw their information? Oh, CO2 has caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.
Bristol University researchers Pru Foster, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jo House and Colin Prentice from the University’s QUEST programme, together with a world-wide team of experts report that over the past 50 years the average fraction of global CO2 emissions that remained in the atmosphere each year was around 43% - the rest was absorbed by the Earth’s carbon sinks on land and in the oceans.
Dr Jo House adds: “During this time this fraction has likely increased from 40% to 45% suggesting a decrease in the efficiency of the natural sinks. The team brings new evidence that the sinks are responding to climate change and variability”.
The scientists report a 29% increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available), and that in spite of the global economic downturn emissions increased by 2% during 2008.
Despite the knowledge gaps, all authors are in agreement that the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions.
orignal post by audas
No the evidence suggests that over 150 years there may not be as much as evidenced in different studies which have pointed to a fractional change over shorter - more specific time frames
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by audas
orignal post by audas
No the evidence suggests that over 150 years there may not be as much as evidenced in different studies which have pointed to a fractional change over shorter - more specific time frames
The report states quite clearly
"trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero".
The University of Bristol press release
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
I had to read what you said several times to actually understand what you where saying. After some analysis I think you are saying that you have evidence of another report that somehow falls outside of the time frame between 1850 and the present date.
If this is correct are you saying that this report is inaccurate?
Originally posted by orionthehunter
I've read there is consensus that there has been global warming going on for some time. A did a quick internet search and I found this article called "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
www.rightsidenews.com... ml
With articles like these out there, the average Joe isn't going to want to spend thousands of dollars extra in energy costs just to suit the demands of those who say we are all going to burn up. When you look at personal experiences, it's just about as cold in my backyard as it normally is this time of year. The average Joe might think predicting global warming is like predicting the weather, they are often wrong. I'm not aware of any studies relating to solar radiation output of the sun to temperatures here on the Earth so I'll stop speculating for the moment how a drop in radiation output could correspond to a drop in temperatures here. I'm not an expert on this so I will not be quoting any studies one way or the other.
[edit on 1-1-2010 by orionthehunter]