The Carbon Cycle and the Demonization of CO2, Smashing Climate Change

Ahhhhh yes, bunk mainstream bias science. The new neo-scientific paradigm is do not challenge the authority even though the basis of science is the challenging of information.

Randal Carlsons Website

This essay and review of research into the carbon cycle and its effect upon the biosphere, more specifically upon the realm of plants and vegetation, is intended to provide a synopsis of evidence and information that is generally being neglected in mainstream discussions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and to provide an enhanced and more realistic perspective on the effects of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide upon the world of nature and the world of humanity, which, of course, are inextricably linked.

In the ocean the CO2 is taken up by a variety of marine organisms that have the ability to precipitate calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from seawater. This calcium carbonate forms the shells, or exoskeletons, of creatures such as scallops, bryozoans, foraminifera and coccolithophores.

Yes, C02 does just, "go away", it's actually a part of the ecosystem.

When these creatures expire their shells drift down and consolidate on the ocean floor where they are eventually lithified under pressure into limestone, chalk and marble, to become part of the lithosphere or rocky crust of the Earth. This is the greatest of all the reservoirs of carbon dioxide storage.

This process is actually

Now let's look at the actual numbers here of how much C02 actually exist and where...

You will note that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is given as 750 gigatons. You will also note that 560 gigatons are consumed in the process of photosynthesis by land plants. Take special note of the amount in the ocean: 38,000 gigatons, or 50 times the amount in the atmosphere. The soil at any time stores about 1500 gigatons.

Atmosphere - 750 gigatons (560 of which is consumed during photosynthesis by plants)
Ocean - 38,000 gigatons of C02 (that's a little over 50x more C02 in the ocean than the atmosphere, a lot more)
Soil - 1500 gigatons

+3 gigatons per year due to burning of fossil fuels

and we add, get this, 3 gigatons!!! yup 3 gigatons of a total 40,250 gigatons

Here we learn several things. We learn that in addition to fossil fuel combustion, carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere through biomass burning. We are informed that the rise in carbon dioxide based solely on anthropogenic emissions should be occurring at 3.5 parts per million per year. The measured increase, however, is only 1.5 parts per million each year. In this study it was found that only 42.8% of total anthropogenic emissions of CO2 was actually residing in the atmosphere. The remaining 57.2% was, and is, being sequestered on land and in the oceans by natural processes.

I should also point out that more recent studies suggest that cement production actually results in a net carbon dioxide sink rather than source, because, even though CO2 is released during cement production, concrete, it turns out, reabsorbs even more of it over the long term.

Interesting... so building cement structures actually helps the atmosphere cycle C02

Here Chamberlin points out the fact that even a miniscule decline in the relative concentration of atmospheric CO2 would have serious consequences for global plant life. I would suggest that today we have a large group, who for various reasons – political, economic or philosophical, have chosen to take Chamberlin’s “narrow homocentric point of view” by imputing a “sinister reputation” to carbon dioxide as a means to attribute all climate change to the activities of mankind.

Oh, good for plant life you say??? No kidding!!

This is still a miniscule amount when considered as a portion of the total atmosphere. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to become diminished by a mere 2 parts out of 10,000 there would be serious detrimental repercussions to the process of photosynthesis, hence to the health of Earth’s plant life and to the entire biosphere as a consequence.

Imagine that, C02 has minimal impact on the atmosphere but a massive impact on plant life production, but not in the way that the media would have you believe.

Reducing C02 would actually have a negetive net impact on global and oceanic plant life. Go figure... once again the media has been proven to perpetuate lies.

NASA.gov

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

In case you don't believe Randal here is some info from NASA for you to check out.

just a drive-by for fyi ..... the uk is currently facing a shortage of c02 for commercial purposes ie drinks industry. the only production facility is apparently winding down. how ironic lol.
read post later f

a reply to: toysforadults

Reducing C02 would actually have a negetive net impact on global and oceanic plant life.

Not much chance of reducing it. But we can certainly slow its increase.

In case you don't believe Randal

I don't. He eats children for crying out loud.

Randall Carlson is a master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar. He has 4 decades of study, research and exploration Into the interface between ancient mysteries and modern science, has been an active Freemason for 30 years and is Past Master of one of the oldest and largest Masonic lodges in Georgia.

sacredgeometryinternational.com...



Your source:

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: fakedirt
just a drive-by for fyi ..... the uk is currently facing a shortage of c02 for commercial purposes ie drinks industry. the only production facility is apparently winding down. how ironic lol.
read post later

f

may take a while to read the article which provides source material for all of the assertions, I didn't bother linking them due to thread space but they are there

a reply to: Phage

When these creatures expire their shells drift down and consolidate on the ocean floor where they are eventually lithified under pressure into limestone, chalk and marble, to become part of the lithosphere or rocky crust of the Earth. This is the greatest of all the reservoirs of carbon dioxide storage.

here let me just link 1 thing for you since you willfully remain ignorant

a reply to: toysforadults
Do you think that it is a secret that some anthropogenic CO2 is naturally sequestered? The point is, natural sequestration is not keeping up.
That's why CO2 concentrations are increasing.

I seem to recall hearing that being pointed out recently.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Not much chance of reducing it

First post.

Do you think that it is a secret that some anthropogenic CO2 is naturally sequestered?

I just want to point out the inconsistency in some of your post, I won't include the other thread.

In the next image Wittwer and Robb show results of carbon dioxide enrichment on several plant varieties after 30 days. The plants in the top row are leaf lettuce, second from the top is bibb lettuce, second from the bottom are tomato plants and the bottom is cucumber. The column on the left are plants grown in an environment with approximately 400 parts per million carbon dioxide, similar to the present concentration, and the column on the right shows plants grown with ambient CO2 concentrations of 1000 ppm. The difference in growth is obvious and impressive.

This is at nearly 3x the amount of global concentration of C02 (we had 5x during the time of the dinosaurs)

The authors are here pointing out that normal carbon dioxide amounts in both air and water are not sufficient for maximizing photosynthesis. In other words, the plants could readily consume a great deal more carbon dioxide than they presently are under ambient conditions, that is, the amount in the air is not sufficient to “saturate photosynthesis.” There is an important implication here: From this perspective one could surmise that the world’s plants might actually, under current conditions, be suffering from a carbon dioxide deficit.

Oh look at that, apparently plants are not getting sufficient c02 concentrations for full potential growth. Hmmm interesting...

do you think that the size of the plant and animal life during the Jurassic period may have been affect by higher concentrations of c02 during that time period??

makes me wonder about other things like giants in mythology...

but that's ok.. anybody with eyes to see will see

a reply to: toysforadults

I just want to point out the inconsistency in some of your post

Please do.

Oh look at that, apparently plants are not getting sufficient c02 concentrations for full potential growth.

Tell me, were those plants in the experiment exposed to natural conditions, or were they also given everything else they needed in a controlled environment? Water? Fertilizer? Temperature control?

do you think that the size of the plant and animal life during the Jurassic period may have been affect by higher concentrations of c02 during that time period??

Maybe. But they went extinct, so...

a reply to: Phage

why don't you go ahead and use the source material to benefit your invalid position, I'm doing the work for you

of course that would mean you would have to actually read it, I know it's hard, reading the material of an educated geologist who's been traveling the world studying his assertions since the 70's

tough tough I know

Yeah, the main issue is the time frame in which all of this happening.
There's just no comparing the natural long and short cycle to human activity. The short cycle still takes a hunderd to a couple of hunderd years, the long cycle takes eons.
Human activity is just blisteringly fast and nature just can't keep up.

a reply to: toysforadults
Ok. The source:
Wittwer and Robb:

Carbon Dioxide Enrichment of Greenhouse Atmospheres for Food Crop Production

www.jstor.org...

a reply to: Phage

Live Science

Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.

Yawn, boring.

a reply to: toysforadults

Back in 2000 when I was developing a commercial robotic grow system for a company in Toronto, we had a closed system 10'w x 10'h x 20' d. It had 29kw of water cooled hps lights (changed to led shortly after), a 2 ton ac unit to keep the temp at 20 degrees c and 100lb cylinders of co2 which were used to quadruple the atmospheric co2 content. Under the hps lights we could grow crops in 20days, seedling to harvest. Using led lights, that dropped to 11 days, you could almost see the romaine lettuce growing. During the research phase, the clean growth was attributed to temperature control, we had no fungus or nasty bacterial colonies. Using hps lights 60% of the decrease in growth time was attributed to the co2 concentrations. Only 40% for the co2 using led lights that were controlled at 450, 665 and 710nm.

So, higher concentrations of co2 stimulate plate growth and reduce growing season times. Seems like a good thing to me, within breathable limits of course for us mammals. It would be very nice to have multiple growing seasons per year in Canada.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Good point

I worked on a grow operation in California a few years ago that for a collective.

We also used c02 to increase the yield

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Phage

Live Science

Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.

Yawn, boring.

The Earth's global temperature was also 20 degrees F higher than it is today. Global temp record

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

yup!!

originally posted by: toysforadults
and we add, get this, 3 gigatons!!! yup 3 gigatons of a total 40,250 gigatons

We add way more than 3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2 not C02) per year. It's rather easy to calculate, if you know just a few things:

originally posted by: Greven
CO2 levels prior to 1850 were below 300ppm. CO2 levels are now over 400ppm. This continues to increase annually, and that increase is less than the amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere.

It's simple math:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), 2011 annual mean: 390.44 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2012 annual mean: 392.45 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2011 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,053.4498 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2012 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,069.1691 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 15.7193 Gt

We also know about how much CO2 is produced by burning fuel, and about how much we burn each year:
Coal: 0.093303951 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 153,000,000,000 million Btu in 2012 = 14,275,504,503 tonnes of CO2 = ~14 Gt of CO2
Oil: 0.071304721 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 90 million barrels per day * 365 * 5.8 million Btu/barrel = 13,585,688,492 tonnes of CO2 = ~13 Gt CO2
Combined: 27 Gt CO2/yr

Never mind other sources; you can see human CO2 emissions exceed the atmospheric increase in CO2 with those two alone.

It's all physics and math. There are certainly unknowns, because we don't know everything - but we do know how CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases interact with radiation. We also have reasonable estimates for our fuel consumption and good estimates for emissions from said consumption of fuel.

Oh, and we're adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere these days.
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2016 annual mean: 402.81ppm
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 404.92ppm
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase: 16.5013 Gt

That's actually down from the previous two years, too.

I mean, we even have O2 trends. These show a decline in oxygen levels, because we've been burning carbon which chemically fixes it to oxygen:

I can't stop you from telling people the wrong thing, but I can point it out. Further, if we take at face value (and it seems reasonable correct) about what's going into the atmosphere versus other destinations, that was what - 42.8%?

So, we simply divide the 16.5013 Gt by 42.8% to get ~38.5544 Gt, which is a reasonable estimate of our total emissions.

a reply to: DexterRiley

And then the Sun was cooler than it is today---we'd be fried even worse now.

There were animals like 10 foot long centipede predators. Imagine cockroaches the size of rats.

a reply to: mbkennel

As long as I have a can of Raid, I'm good.