NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

I never trust mainstream science because there are always way too many factors involved, and they still don't account for the effect of the consciousness of the people performing the experiment. They're also repeatedly proving themselves wrong.

a reply to: strongfp

Sure I do. You're an apologist, and you bought the Gore "reality" hook line and sinker.


Take care.... slap Al on the rumpus for me....

And yet consumers buy the latest greatest trendiest invention that's out there every single day usually made from gasp Plastics and many other toxic parts.

oohh noo The Sky Is Falling quick buy some more of that s*** causes the sky to fall.

Nobody is changing just bitch about who is the most pious lol wankers.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That’s interesting. Why, if the ice core data time and again attest to “temperature was the CAUSE of the CO2 increase, and not an effect from it”, has a debate about AGW even coalesced into what some call “settled science (I’m not playing devil’s advocate, it’s a legit question and I appreciate it)? Is it a chicken before the egg dichotomy? It doesn’t help making any sense of this when NASA is still ‘tweaking’ their models based on new science/data...the more I read/hear about climate change/disruption/AGW, the more convulted and uncertain it all appears — 10 years ago I was told I’d have beachfront property. Can they (whoever they are — NASA in this case) make up their minds and stop making up new models? I was really looking forward to fishing in the surf. Doh!

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Climate change scientist don't disagree with natural causes for sudden changes, they know this, and predict it. But they also do not ignore that on top of all these naturally occurring events humans don't make it any better.

Denying climate change, is one thing, but denying humans make it worse is another.
it's like someone who drinks to much alcohol, they know the older they get the more prone they are to diseases, but they ignore that alcohol is making it worse and blame it on age.

Here's the deal: denying it seems the only reasonable solution for now because the people who are actually put in charge of making decisions can only come up with a single solution: to not change their behavior at all, while taxing me for mine.

If this is as big of a deal as is being made, then why are we not actually really doing something? I mean....we could set up a Manhattan Project type of situation where we go all in to create carbon neutral energy that is able to be mass produced. Or maybe some of the tax breaks and subsidies could go towards manufacturing better options for travel.

What do we get instead? Battery powered everything, as if we don't use coal fired plants to generate electricity.

When leadership is serious enough about it to change their behaviors, then I may be. Until then, ill see it as just another fear stoking money grab.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Climate change scientist don't disagree with natural causes for sudden changes, they know this, and predict it. But they also do not ignore that on top of all these naturally occurring events humans don't make it any better.

Denying climate change, is one thing, but denying humans make it worse is another.
it's like someone who drinks to much alcohol, they know the older they get the more prone they are to diseases, but they ignore that alcohol is making it worse and blame it on age.

The problem with your analogy is a human's life is a bit shorter than this planet's and both the alcohol and age issue is proven.

Historical climate change is obviously proven, as well. Human caused, however, is not proven. Period. It is implied, perhaps even likely, to some degree, but to use this 'possible' factor to rip there very fabric of society, especially when our 'science community' is largely controlled by whomever grants funding and has been converted from scientists to technocrats is NOT accepted.

The fact of much higher C02 levels in our histroy IS proven.

It is unfortunate that there are so many vested interests in this issue, both political, financial and social. It makes the decision process difficult, to say the least.

In my case, I trust none of our scientists as even they are not in accord.

I also suspect those that push this agenda as likely having their own personal agenda, as well.

We should be concentrating on actual proven pollution of our oceans, water and air. This smells of nothing more than a deflection from true issues by TPTB, on top of everything else. JMO, though.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: network dude

c'mon.....if you cut down or burn down vast swaths of green foliage, there is less plant life to absorb the carbon-dioxide, did you ever have a science class?......also, there are limits to the amount of carbon-dioxide that can be absorbed by plant life, once they reach that amount, they can no longer absorb more....but, you would know that too, if you took a science class, or bothered to do some research

LMAO

Yeah, there's that lack of education again. Thanks for your post though because the fact that plants have a limited CO2 uptake was not taught at the time I went to HS.

I appreciate the new information.

Maybe the poster you responded to was sleeping in class or surfing their phone at the time the teacher was trying to drill an education into his/her head.

a reply to: network dude

Farmers burn the rain forest down, and vast areas are now gone.

Isn't it only logical that after a massive % of the forest is destroyed, that more CO2 will exist as less is consumed by the now non-existent forest?

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900. Brazil and Indonesia, which contain the world’s two largest surviving regions of rain forest, are being stripped at an alarming rate by logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and cattle-grazing.

Look even if this is an out of context exaggeration, it doesn't take a genius to realize that at least 10 to 20% of the natural forest area is gone.

If even only 5% of the forest was missing, what % increase in CO2 would that relate to? 1%, 2%? Half a %?
I dunno, but math is math.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The solution seems simple to me.

Stop corporations and governments from polluting the oceans and rivers and groundwater.
Stop whomever from burning down the forests.

Basic anti-pollution and conservationism seems adequate.
Problem is, they aren't doing that.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You're missing the point.

A central power supply giving millions of people power is completely different than having it being used by millions on a individual basis.

This is what is called progress. It doesn't happen over night, it doesn't happen in years, it happens in decades, centuries.
But look at it this way, it only took us less than two centuries to get to damage our planet, imagine if we kept on the same path as we did before.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: strongfp

Sure I do. You're an apologist, and you bought the Gore "reality" hook line and sinker.


Take care.... slap Al on the rumpus for me....

I never mentioned Al gore once. Stop assuming. Once again, nothing added to the thread other than just insults, assumptions, and bad personal jabs.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: network dude

Farmers burn the rain forest down, and vast areas are now gone.

Isn't it only logical that after a massive % of the forest is destroyed, that more CO2 will exist as less is consumed by the now non-existent forest?

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900. Brazil and Indonesia, which contain the world’s two largest surviving regions of rain forest, are being stripped at an alarming rate by logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and cattle-grazing.

Look even if this is an out of context exaggeration, it doesn't take a genius to realize that at least 10 to 20% of the natural forest area is gone.

If even only 5% of the forest was missing, what % increase in CO2 would that relate to? 1%, 2%? Half a %?
I dunno, but math is math.

Except you omit the massive Ag. increase to feed the growing population. Irrigation has increased the production of agricultural products which increase the conversion of CO2 into oxygen.

I recall 15% oxygen levels cited in the sixties. That number remains the same, apparently.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: nwtrucker

The solution seems simple to me.

Stop corporations and governments from polluting the oceans and rivers and groundwater.
Stop whomever from burning down the forests.

Basic anti-pollution and conservationism seems adequate.
Problem is, they aren't doing that.

Sounds fine with the exception of this burning down forests. The amount of Ag. that has replaced forestation balances the oxygen-CO2 cycle. Add in irrigation where none existed previously has increased vegetation where none in any volume existed previously.

This is obvious stuff, I'm saying here folks....what's with you ignoring both sides of this, people???

a reply to: nwtrucker

I cannot explain it to you better than a scientist can.
But C02 levels on this planet are very fragile, they play a minor role in the way the earths atmosphere allows heat to be trapped in or let out.
But, even massive sudden influxtions in C02 can be easily mitigated and managed by the planet.
To put it into basic terms, and it's why I used my alcohol analogy, is that humans have been sending out a steady flow of C02, while destroying massive amount of ecosystems that would have otherwise just simply absorbed the influx from say multiple volcanoes, and what not over time.
But, that's not the case. Now, imagine an alcoholic going on a binge drinking session every weekend, plus drinking heavily throughout the week. The body has no time to really recover from the binge, it just suffers.

It's the same with C02 emissions, all it takes is the earth to go through a bunch of binge sessions and no time in between to recover because of humans destroying ecosystems, all the while spewing out C02 unnaturally.

Now on top of this, throw in all sorts of other factor, and scenarios. It's not a good sign. So why not work towards letting the planet be able to cope with natural causes on it's own? Ease it's pain from it's human disease of greed for natural resources.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Approx 25000 years ago the CO2 ramped up tremendously . This brought about a mini ice age that covered North America down to Dallas, Tx. in 2 feet of ice.In just a very short period of time.Lets hope it isnt natural or Houston , we got a problem again .
Wasnt much manufacturing or coal powered electricity producers 25000 years ago . Or do you believe there were ?

Man made global warming is just an example of "Wizard's First Rule" How most magic works-
Zed (book by Terry Goodkind)

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You're missing the point.

A central power supply giving millions of people power is completely different than having it being used by millions on a individual basis.

This is what is called progress. It doesn't happen over night, it doesn't happen in years, it happens in decades, centuries.
But look at it this way, it only took us less than two centuries to get to damage our planet, imagine if we kept on the same path as we did before.

I mean, if i set my incredulity aside I get what you are saying.

My incredulity comes from the fact that since we created our current technology for locomotion, we have put humans and machines on extraterrestrial bodies. We have viewed planets orbiting other stars. We have created infinite real estate and instantaneous communication on the internet. We have cured disease, in particular bacterial and eradicated many of mankinds longest lived methods of death in polio and smallpox. We are growing meat in labs, cloning animals, doing DNA repair/replacement. We have created calculators so powerful that they rival the human brain. We have split the atom, we have conquered orbital dynamics, and created a form of physics that is able to help us achieve many of the above mentioned feats.

All of this has been accomplished since we last bothered to update our tech for locomotion from oil based products. And its easy to see why: the value of our economy is based on the value of oil.

Until we quit kicking that can down the road, divorcing oil from economy as a baseline, nothing else will matter. Because I find it impossible to believe that we are able to make invisibility cloaks, but can't seem to get off of oil

Has the Earth gone through the same type of CC or worse in the past? I'm sure it has. Are we contributing to this cycle of CC. I'm sure we are. Why don't we do something about it? From what I can tell it's because some don't care for Al Gore. The politicizing of this issue could lead us to a breaking point. Not the Earth. It's got another 4-5 billion years left. As Carlin said, "The planet is not going anywhere. WE ARE!" Seems silly to not even consider alternatives to combat a climate that will not sustain us in the future.

a reply to: intrepid

Has the Earth gone through the same type of CC or worse in the past?

Not for 800,000 years or so, at least. Not by a long shot.
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...

Re: The OP.
So we know the source of a bit larger than normal spike in the trend. That could be useful in refining the feedback effects in the models.
www.esrl.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Gothmog

Approx 25000 years ago the CO2 ramped up tremendously .

False.
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...

This brought about a mini ice age that covered North America down to Dallas, Tx. in 2 feet of ice

Nonsense. 25,000 years ago the planet was in the midst of a glacial period (commonly, and incorrectly referred to as an ice age).