Posted on 05/01/2015 9:04:56 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[[A tiny number can last a century]]
Got figures for that ‘tiny number’?
[[But the amount in the atmosphere is still mostly natural (perhaps 300 out of 400 ppm).]]
Now we’ve gone from man being responsible for 120 ppm to ‘perhaps’ 100
[[Sorry, I was not clear. 30% of the CO2, but thinking about the natural rise from the Little Ice Age,]]
Why stop at little ice age? Why not go back to when CO2 was 400 ppm? Doesn’t fit the narrative as well I guess
[[no scientists on its staff and quotes the irrelevant anecdote of a handful of CO2 molecules that might last a century whereas only the average lifetime counts.]]
Again- appealing to authority is not a valid argument- it is irrelevant IF a site has no scientists onboard- it is only relevant what the site takes it info from- if you have evidence that refutes theirs, then that’s another matter- but saying ‘a handful of molecules’ is non scientific- where are the figures showing how much stays in atmosphere over 10 years? That is what will refute the site’s cited claims
[[The correction is at the link, but the paper says that about 3.75% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from recent emissions.]]
“Recent” is relative- could mean last year, could mean 1000 years or longer-
[[That is quite impossible since nature can not tell the difference between existing CO2 and new natural and new manmade CO2. It is all the same.]]
Well That makes no sense- if nature ‘can’t tell the difference,’ then obviously it would take up man’s CO2 as well as natural
[[The question is then, for them and for you, how do you explain the drop and rise in CO2 every year?]]
The question is, how do ‘man-caused’ climate change alarmists explain the rise in CO2 but the flatline in temps for 2 decades-
[[As temperature of the ocean goes up, so does CO2.]]
Only after temps go up does CO2 levels go up in atmosphere- many many years after- IF CO2 were causing temsp to go up- you would not have had flatline temps for 2 decades because CO2 was getting steadily more abundant in atmosphere all those years-
[[They correctly point out that El Nino warmth produces more CO2 and La Nina cold less.]]
We certainly haven’t had 2 decades of el niano or la nina- but CO2 has risen steadily, and temps have remained flatlined
[[My figure is much more likely based mainly on the fact that natural CO2 hovered around 300 for the past 10,000 years.]]
And yet In the past, it was at 400- for however long it was, and before that at 6000 or so for who knows how long-
[[As someone asked in the comments, how come the rise started right when the industrial revolution started?]]
Cyclical warming trends had begun releasing more CO2- the little ice age had ended- and the earth was warming again- pretty simple explanation really- There had been lots of CO2 in the miles thick ice=- as it warmed and the ice melted the CO2 was released- Then along comes al gore, in all his scientific brilliance, and says “CO2 increased ‘around the time the industrial age began’ THEREFORE man is the cause, THEREFORE I will become a very rich man”
The average residence time for a molecule is 3 years. The minimum time a molecule can last is zero seconds (created and absorbed almost right away). Therefore the number of molecules that hang around for a century, assuming a Gaussian distribution centered around 3 years, is about 100 sigma or 0.000000(lots more zeros)00001
Why stop at little ice age? Why not go back to when CO2 was 400 ppm?
CO2 was last 400 ppm millions of years ago when geography was very different. Geography dictates climate (along with solar) which dictates CO2. But, as I point out in many ways, the CO2 is now an independent variable, no longer dependent on global temperature.
it is irrelevant IF a site has no scientists onboard- it is only relevant what the site takes it info from- if you have evidence that refutes theirs, then that's another matter
I've given lots of evidence that refutes theirs. The 100 year CO2 molecule is a 100 sigma event, it essentially does not exist. I am certainly not appealing to authority. If they had scientific evidence to rest upon, they would have had a bibliography, but they do not. Their paper was written in 2007 and they have had ample time to look up supporting science, but they have not.
Only after temps go up does CO2 levels go up in atmosphere- many many years after
True, about 500-1000 years after due to slow warming of the deep ocean. But to get a 120 ppm rise in the last 100 years, the deep ocean would have to have warmed at least 12C. That did not happen, therefore the source of the CO2 was not deep ocean warming. That doesn't rule out other sources, but does rule out the usual source responsible for that lag.
We certainly haven't had 2 decades of el niano or la nina- but CO2 has risen steadily, and temps have remained flatlined
All true. It shows that rising CO2 has little to no effect on global temperature
And yet In the past, it was at 400- for however long it was, and before that at 6000 or so for who knows how long-
True but ancient earth geology and geography was different. One reason we have so little CO2 now is the uplift of the Himilayas. Large mountains remove huge amounts of CO2 over time as they weather.
Cyclical warming trends had begun releasing more CO2- the little ice age had ended- and the earth was warming again- pretty simple explanation really
Yes, that explains some of the rise. But to get a 120ppm rise requires much more warming than we've seen. The reason for that is paleo evidence, as the earth warmed and cooled about 10C in and out of ice ages, the CO2 rose and fell about 100ppm. At most about 1C per 10ppm. We have had a 120ppm rise, but no corresponding 12C rise.
[[We have had a 120ppm rise, but no corresponding 12C rise. ]]
Hmmm, no 12C rise from ice age to present- interesting-
[[The average residence time for a molecule is 3 years. The minimum time a molecule can last is zero seconds (created and absorbed almost right away). Therefore the number of molecules that hang around for a century, assuming a Gaussian distribution centered around 3 years, is about 100 sigma or 0.000000(lots more zeros)00001]]
assuming- also you cite no references to this claim/
[[But to get a 120 ppm rise in the last 100 years, the deep ocean would have to have warmed at least 12C.... That doesn’t rule out other sources,]]
You are making the claim that because the earth did not increase 12C then man must be responsible- yet here you state ‘other sources’ can’t be ruled out-
[[All true. It shows that rising CO2 has little to no effect on global temperature]]
So what are you arguing about then?- You are making the claim that the industrial age is responsible for global climate change- and then turn around and state that CO2 has little to no effect on global climate change-
[[We have had a 120ppm rise, but no corresponding 12C rise.]]
Which perfectly illustrates WHY CO2 rises do not cause global climate change- We have MORe co2 than awhile ago- Yet we are actually cooler than we were
[[It includes the following graph showing that while global CO2 has constantly risen, we have still had our natural cycles of global warming and global cooling.]]
[[The above picture graph from the Texas A & M website shows some critically important and interesting information. It appears that the period covered was the year, 1995. According to Professor Easterbrook’s graph, above, on global temperature, this would have been a year when there was no substantial change in the temperature, although there was a general warming trend from the 1970s through 1998. The measurements are in metric “tonnes” (approximately 2,204 lbs.). The figures show the relative insignificance of the CO2 output into the atmosphere due to the use of “fossil fuels” compared to the action of the ocean. The ocean absorbed 16.7 times more CO2 from the atmosphere than was put into it from the use of those fuels (92/5.5); and put into the atmosphere, from the surface water, 16.4 times more than from fossil fuels. (90/5.5) In addition, a net of 10 billion tonnes was released into the ocean by marine organisms (50-40); and a net of 8 billion tonnes (90-92) was released into the ocean from activity in the intermediate and deep waters (100-92). If this additional 18 billion tonnes of CO2 does not bubble up into the atmosphere, it will be stored in the ocean, and can be released when there is later sufficient warming of the ocean, or ocean uprisings due to substantial warming periods. When we add this action of the ocean to the activities of the sun and cosmic rays, the importance of “fossil fuel” emissions becomes negligible, under any argument. In addition, we will see that the “fossil fuel” emissions actually have a cooling effect – the exact opposite of what the “global warmers” tell us. The cooling effect is primarily because of elements in the emissions other than CO2, that have more substance than CO2.]]
[[The NASA website has the article, Ocean and Climate,[12] which states the same basic information as the above. And as to how great the change can be, The Science Daily article, Massive Carbon Dioxide Burps Came From Ocean At End Of Last Ice Age,[13] states:]]
[[ScienceDaily (May 11, 2007) — A University of Colorado at Boulder-led research team tracing the origin of a large carbon dioxide increase in Earth’s atmosphere at the end of the last ice age has detected two ancient “burps” that originated from the deepest parts of the oceans.
“This is some of the clearest evidence yet that the enormous carbon release into the atmosphere during the last deglaciation was triggered by abrupt changes in deep ocean circulation,” said Marchitto.]]
From that link as well- Your oceans ARE warmer today, causing more release of CO2, yet, as pointed out many times in this thread- there is MORE CO2 in atmosphere, yet temps remained flat for 2 decades (while oceans apparently continued to warm-) Massive releases of CO2 have occurred since the end of little iceage- according to Nasa
one more quick point- more CO2 In the atmosphere means LES heat from sun making it’s way through the atmosphere as the CO2 will absorb, then radiate that heat out in all directions, whereas if there was less CO2 in atmosphere, the sun would have more of a direct path to earth without any preventions by the CO2- CO2 doesn’t just absorb heat from earth, it also absorbs it from sun-
That article I linked to is full of contradictions that can not be explained away by ‘man-caused climate change’ proponents- I don’t have the time to invest in this discussion- but will take some time to point the many contradictions out if necessary- but suffice it to say- there have been periods where ‘burps’ have occurred releasing massive amounts of CO2 when the earth wasn’t ‘properly warm enough’ for warmth/CO2 release norms to occur- so while temps may not have risen ‘enough’ for nature to release CO2- obviously Nature HAS released massive deposits of Co2- BUT temps certainly didn’t spike during or shortly after- and nothing substantially unusual has occurred that hasn’t happened before regarding cyclical warming trends- “A common phrase among statisticians is correlation does not imply causation.” Yet that is precisely what ‘man-caused climate change’ proponents are doing- It’s warmer now, man produces CO2, so therefore man is responsible for the warming
Again- We’re back to the Fact that man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere works out to just 0.00137% of the atmosphere- here simply is not enough CO2 produced by man to do anything to the climate- and there isn’t even enough natural CO2 to do anything- and records show that increasing CO2 does not drive climate change- as we’ve seen In the past 20 years and in records dating way back-
I never made that claim. CO2 could cause warming in theory in the long run, but natural warming and cooling dominates in the short and medium run. We only have good short run data to deal with (satellites started in 1979). Since 1979 we had a strong El Nino (natural) warming period which still has some lingering effects in the Arctic. I don't attribute "Climate change" or more correctly "global warming" to CO2. Some might be in theory but I really don't care one way or the other. We are warming and that is good.
The ocean absorbed 16.7 times more CO2 from the atmosphere than was put into it from the use of those fuels (92/5.5); and put into the atmosphere, from the surface water, 16.4 times more than from fossil fuels. (90/5.5)
Backs up what I have been saying all along: the oceans release a lot of CO2, but the oceans also absorb a lot of CO2. The net output from the oceans is negative. Man's output is all positive. If we stopped producing CO2, the amount in the atmosphere would drop as the oceans would keep absorbing as they are doing right now.
It's no surprise at all that the ocean belched up lots of CO2 at the end of the last ice age as shown in the chart in that link. That's because they warmed about 10C (from -9 to +1 in the 400,000 year chart). If the present CO2 burp came from the same source there would have to have been a 10C rise in the oceans in the last 500 to 1000 years. That has not happened. Instead it coincides with the manmade production of CO2.
It could be other natural sources as I said all along, but that would a wild coincidence that just once in 400,000 years (same chart) so we jumped up to 400ppm from previous peaks at 300ppm. Never happened before (on that chart). Happened before that chart in other available data, but never in those 400,000 years.
Your oceans ARE warmer today, causing more release of CO2
Right but not the same magnitude of warmth as that chart. In the chart the oceans rise 10C and the CO2 rises about 100 ppm. But in the past 1000 years the oceans have only warmed a little, 1C at most. But today we have a spike of 120ppm. Some of that is from the warmer ocean, but only about 5-10 ppm worth. The rest is manmade (best explanation) or unknown natural source that has never happened in last 400,000 years but just happened in the last 100.
there is MORE CO2 in atmosphere, yet temps remained flat for 2 decades
Correct. In the short run CO2 has no effect on temperature. In the long run it has an effect in theory, but the effect will be small, otherwise we would see more effect in the short run. Also the effect will be beneficial as we have a precarious existence on the cusp of major ice ages.
True.
We’re back to the Fact that man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere works out to just 0.00137% of the atmosphere-
Not true, man's CO2 is 0.012% of the atmosphere.
records show that increasing CO2 does not drive climate change- as we’ve seen In the past 20 years and in records dating way back-
True for the last 20. Also true in the chart in your last link, warming preceded CO2. CO2 did not drive warming, the solar changes did (also tilt of the earth). There is no way to conclude from that chart (the 400,000 year chart) that man's CO2 will drive substantial warming or even any warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.