Planes or Volcano (Fact check needed)

Information is Beautiful ^ | 04/16/2010 | David McCandless

[dynamitehack]

What's emitting the most CO2 per day?
(and does it matter??)

Data resides here...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aqe2P9sYhZ2ndERxaWs2TU1iaDU1QW9ldzBzQXBpbkE&hl=en_GB

[dynamitehack]

Can someone please shed some light on this.
I am not a scientist, but I find this hard to believe.
Of course, what is worse for our environment...CO2 or shards of glass and dust in our lungs??

'Hack

[PizzaDriver]

Then comes the Question about the Fluoride that will fall WITH our Rainwater...

[HerrBlucher]

C02 is great for the environment, plants thrive on it and then return oxygen to us. Volcanic eruptions ARE the environment. That anyone even considers c02 an environmental issue shows how brainwashed the public has become by commie scientist frauds and their media bullhorns.

[ETL]

What's emitting the most CO2 per day? (and does it matter??)

It doesn't seem to matter since there is ZERO evidence from Earth's past of a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature. At least not when CO2 levels were within 15 times or so of what we have today. And the little warming we had last century (about 1 degree) seems to have ended about 15 years ago. The Earth has been in a flat or cooling trend since 1995. Moreover, much of that earlier warming could easily have been, at least in part, attributable to increased solar activity which was occurring at the time.

[iowamark]

1. It only counts a single volcano.
2. Volcanoes are not big emitters of CO2. Their heat is not the product of combustion.

[dynamitehack]

Apples and Oranges then, you're saying?!?
'Hack

[truemiester]

Flouride WITH our rainwater?

The corruption of our bodily fluids, Mandrake!

[iowamark]

Exactly.

[dynamitehack]

Sweet, I'll sleep much better now.
Thanks!

'Hack

[ETL]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

[ETL]

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

[agere_contra]

Careful, there is an excellent correlation on an 800-year timescale.

The temperature rises or falls. 800 years later the CO2 rises or falls.

It's because the ocean (as a whole) has a delayed response to warm periods due to its immense heat capacity. The warmth from a warm period does eventually strobe the whole ocean - maybe 18 ppm of the rise in atmopheric CO2 since 1850 is due to simple outgassing from the oceans since the Medieval Warm Period, about 800 years ago.

(outgassing = in this case, like what happens if you heat up a fizzy drink)

[ETL]

Careful, there is an excellent correlation on an 800-year timescale.

True, but that is a *reverse* correlation, not a positive one as I stated. i.e, temps rise *before* CO2 does, the lag time being about 800 years. Perhaps I'm wrong with the terminology?

[ETL]

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods, approximately 100,000 years apart. Look carefully at the historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does this data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases, lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly uses this same data as "evidence" of a *positive* historical correlation between CO2 and temps. Furthermore, and importantly, the subsequent CO2 level increases (due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans) never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and company continue warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to any significant global warming when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

[Crim]

Correct...temp leads CO2 as an indicator..

[J Edgar]

Planes or volcanos? what about cows? - this unauthorized eruption from Iceland is more than the next 5000 generations of cows could contribute!
Iceland or Greenland, or whom every they are, must be told to stop this activity and control the forces of nature that reside within their borders!
If containment isn’t achieved soon, Al Gore SHALL TAKE CONTROL under UN authority!

[ETL]

Correct...temp leads CO2 as an indicator..

So was I correct then in describing it as a "reverse correlation", as opposed to a "positive" one? Or did I screw up on the terminology?

[DB]

No it isn’t “reverse correlation”. I don’t believe there is such a thing as “reverse correlation”. Either it correlates to some degree or it does not. Clearly there is correlation, a lagging in time correlation, the point is causation. Ocean cooling causes CO2 absorption and ocean heating causes CO2 out gassing not the other way around. What is reversed is the common claim that CO2 levels drive temperature where in fact temperatures drive CO2 levels.

[ETL]

What is reversed is the common claim that CO2 levels drive temperature where in fact temperatures drive CO2 levels.

That is what I wrote. I just thought the term "reverse correlation" described the situation perfectly.