Posted on 12/30/2018 8:24:27 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Volcanic CO2 is about 1% of manmade CO2. Even if there are large unknown undersea sources of volcanic CO2, there would need to be an explanation of why CO2 went from 280 to 410 ppm in the past two centuries and not the prior 20,000 years or more. The 20,000 years is based on Greenland ice core CO2 measurements which have an annual resolution and would have caught rises like the current one (and subsequent falls).
There is other fossil evidence of rises of up to 50 ppm in a century using leaf stomata. So a natural rise is not out of the question. But the best explanation of the current rise of 2-3ppm per year is that it is manmade.
I watched this and it was quite offensive. Chuck Todd was like a kid in a candy shop getting all the wacko environmentalist chiming in with his every statement. He had on Michael Bloomberg, eco nut, as well as California Governor Jerry Brown, otherwise known as Governor Moonbeam, who was off the charts in his determination to impose his views and policies on the public.
It reminds me of the story behind another deeply flawed statistic that's been quoted widely by the media for decades now: That 1/3 of all gay teens seriously contemplate suicide, always accompanied by "the obvious explanation" that it's homophobes, ie conservative Christians, at fault. Yet it turns out that the stat comes from a gay who wasn't even a trained reaearcher, but rather a local govt social worker in SanFran, whose entire case load was underage gay prostitutes. So his sample size was just the few dozen teen prostitutes who he counseled, boys who sold their bodies to nen. And they were touted as being representative of all gay teens across America.
Once our Leftist MSM gets their teeth into a useful statistic, no matter how bogus, they'll never let it go.
I once saw a list of "all the world's top client scientists",who signed some manifesto from the UN Panel on Climate change, and I noted that these top experts included such unimpeachable luminaries as the Agricultural Ministers of countries from Botswana to Zimbabwe.
The amount of other greenhouse gases leaking up from the seabeds could also be a factor. The amount could vary in time due to natural causes, local seismic activity for one example.
https://earthsky.org/earth/warmer-ocean-may-be-releasing-frozen-methane
Several nations have studied using the menthane hydrate frozen in ice found deep in the oceans as fuel.
Also the amount of green life gases vary with time, affected by climate change. 12 thousand years ago, there was a mile of ice sitting on top of the local landscape. Would a cooler world have less atmospheric Co2? The climate then changed due to other-than-man reasons. Solar Activity?
Thank you both.
I just skimmed this article- here’s an excerpt from it:
“In this graph by Ian Hill based on Knorr’s paper, the yellow line shows the AF of human CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. It is below the level of growth of CO2 shown by the green line. Human emissions cannot be the cause of all of the increase in CO2
A new paper by professor Hermann Harde estimates the human contribution to the increase in CO2 as between 4.3 – 15%:
The other part of the alarmist argument for humans being the cause of atmospheric increase is the isotope distinction between C12 and C13. Alarmists argue that the increase in C12 relative to C13 CO2 proves emissions from the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of the increase in CO2. However, this cannot establish human responsibility for the increase in CO2 as professor Tom Segalstad explains at section 10 of his paper:”
https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-co2-increase-not-due-humans-alarmism-baseless/
I can’t read through all those articles in my last link- I’m suffering pretty bad brain fog- which makes concentrating difficult- I’m not goign to get too deep into this discussion- but
“In fact it was not until approximately 1975 that temperatures began to rise. However, this doesn’t mean that CO2 based Anthropogenic Global Warming began in 1975, because as Phil Jones noted during a 2010 BBC interview, “As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.” As such, the warming from 1910 – 1940, before Anthropogenic CO2 became potentially consequential, is “not statistically significantly different” from the warming during the period from 1975 – 1998 when the IPCC AR5 claims to be ” extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”...
Regardless, claims that “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century” are erroneous and indicative of either ignorance or duplicity on the part of NASA’s Earth Observatory, NASA’s Climate Consensus page, The Daily Mail, the EPA and many others. “
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/
While CO2 has risen due to man, it’s not clear that this rise is responsible for the warming- many papers point to the fact that according to the IPCC report, warming should have been higher if CO2 is causing warming- it has not been-
Yes and yes. But the warming (or cooling) to raise (or lower) CO2 pales in comparison to the observed rise in CO2. About 5-10 ppm of the current rise in CO2 is due to natural warming from the end of the Little Ice Age. And that is indeed an effect of increased solar activity. The rest of the rise in CO2 is from deforestation, cement making and fossil fuel burning.
The most important thing to remember about the current climate is that we are in an ice age. We are lucky to have stayed in interglacial relative warmth for so long, going on 20,000 years. But a serious drop in solar activity would end that warmth and large percentages of fauna and flora would die including most humans. Another cause for sudden cooling could be a super volcano exploding like Toba. We would have a few decades of winter and a large amount of mortality.
The reason the current climate is so cold is sinple: geology and geography. The uplift of various mountains, especially the Himalayas has caused a depletion of CO2 that was unprecedented in earth's history. Thankfully we ended that. The geographic factor is Antarctica isolated and acting as the world's freezer. The closing of the Ithsmus of Panama also contributed to global cooling. Even Greenland drifting slightly northward has helped cool the planet.
In short more CO2 and more warmth is needed mainly to preclude a devastating Little Ice Age or catastrophic full ice age.
In short more CO2 and more warmth is needed mainly to preclude a devastating Little Ice Age or catastrophic full ice age.
Anyone remember q10 from chemistry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q10_(temperature_coefficient)
I wonder if more volcanic activity the last 40 years is a better accounting for the alleged rise in atmospheric CO2.
F Chuck Todd, whose wife’s firm got $1,000,000 from the socialist Bernie “three houses” Sanders. Big carbon footprint, there, Chuckie.
The last statement is correct. A molecule of CO2 from burnt fossil only lasts a few years before being absorbed by the ocean. But most of those molecules are replaced by the ocean, so the residence time doesn't really matter.
The misquote is "A new paper by professor Hermann Harde estimates the human contribution to the increase in CO2 as between 4.3 – 15%". No, what the paper claims is that the human contribution to the increase in CO2 is 15% and that the human contribution to the total (existing plus increase) is 4.3% It is both 4.3% (of the total) and 15% (of the rise), not "between 4.3 and 15%"
The problems with the Hermann Harde paper were detailed here: http://epic.awi.de/46881/1/revision_harde_comment.pdf The main problem is confusing molecular residence time (4 years) which doesn't matter, to the equilibrium time. If we stopped producing CO2, the concentration would fall half way back to equilibrium in about 40 years. The typical claim in the media is that it would take 1000's of years for CO2 to fall. But that is irrelevant because they are estimating the fall back to equilibrium which we know from earth's history is too low (risks putting us back into a full glacial period).
Here is Harde's response to that response: http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/Reply_2017-06-27_F.pdf which points out the rapid decay of C14 after the bomb tests ended (figure 1). That rapid decay is due to the short residence time of CO2 molecules, about 4 years. The C14 mixed out of the atmosphere quickly. But the extra C14 is still around, just mixed into the much larger ocean CO2 reservoir.
In short, Harde's premise is that the CO2 gets absorbed quickly so the slow observed rise must be natural. Unfortunately he doesn't explain the cause of the rise and why it never occurred in 20,000 years of reasonable annual CO2 measurements, until the last 200 years.
Another way to look at it is like this: each degree of warming of the ocean releases about 5-10 ppm of CO2. But the current observed rise of CO2 is 2-3 ppm per year. What warming of 500-1000 years ago would do that? Physically impossible.
Good point. Those know so much about Science, too!
So if man made CO2 is really the problem, what is your solution? Realize that in a small soccer stadium of 10000 seats, you are telling me the seats occupied by CO2 have risen from 21 to 42 which is imperceptible and does not cause anything...in my book.
[[In short, Harde’s premise is that the CO2 gets absorbed quickly so the slow observed rise must be natural.]]
If it isn’t man-caused, it’s natural- he doesn’t really have to explain what natural process- only that the data shows that the amounts don’t jive with man’s production increase and the rate of absorption- those claiming man is to blame simply state along the liens of ‘the increase is there, it’s rapid, therefore it’s man’s fault’ without any real explanation of evidence to show it- so we have two opposing assumptions based on some facts- both are hypothesis based- not theory based
The fact is that ‘man-caused’ advocates are claiming that future events (the future rise is CO2) is causing present conditions- CO2 lags temp rises-
I’m gonna run something by you that I’ve said before- in next post- I wont’ respond to followup post for awhile though-
Manmade CO2 is not a problem. It is the solution to CO2 starvation. It is the solution to a climate that is fundementally too cold compared to the Holocene optimum. The slight warming from manmade CO2 may still not be enough to prevent a disastrous Litttle Ice Age if the sun goes quiet for decades or centuries.
The atmosphere is made up of just 0.00136% CO2 as a direct result of man (it’s even less- as that 0.00136% includes other greenhouse gases)
There is at best, an extremely thin layer (that i doubt covers the globe- and is just localized in small areas around the globe- correct me if I’m wrong)
This layer is ‘constantly saturated’ ie each molecule of CO2 is ‘full’- which means, any new incoming heat blows right on past without being absorbed- infact the vast majority of escaping heat from earth blows on past because there is so little CO2 to absorb it-
only small patches of the atmosphere have CO2- the vast majority having none- so there’s nothing to stop heat from blowing past-
What little heat does get absorbed, gets rattled aroudn creates more heat, and then gets radiated outwards- in all directions including outwards (not back towards earth)
only a small % is radiated back towards earth
here’s the problem with hte “CO2 causes warming” claim:
So little actual heat is actually absorbed by CO2 that there is no way it could raise temperatures globally-
Worse yet, is that so little of what little is absorbed, gets radiated back ‘in the right direction to cause heating of the globe’ towards earth that it coulodn’t possibly be causing warming- the vast majority of the captured and released heat doesn’t even go back towards earth, and isn’t held in the atmosphere- it’s radiated outwards-
What little actual heat is radiated ‘in the right direction’ towards earth, now greets earth which is now cooler because of the heat that escaped in the first place, and it quickly reaches equilibrium because there simply is not enough heat to overwhelm the now cooler mass of air (think about pouring 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water into an Olympic sized pool of 90 degree water- the 100 degree water quickly cools to 90 degrees- the 90 degree mass of water does not heat up to 100 degrees because there simply is nowhere near enou8gh 100 degree water)
You can’t counter the argument by claiming that ‘but there is a constant influx of heated air reaching earth, or remaining ‘trapped in the atmosphere’’ because the amount is still so small over the course of a day that it still can’t possibly cause global warming- the amount is still way way below 0.00136% of the atmosphere- As the heated molecules get radiated out- they meet cooler molecules even before the get back to earth- which is now much cooler itself-
bottom line- while the rise in CO2 may or may not be man-caused- the current amount is still way too small to have a global effect- at best, it can only have very isolated localized effects- There MUST BE other reasons for climate change- because the numbers/amount does not support global change-
[[There are many volcanoes, and other CO2 seeps. If it is really an uptick in natural emissions in the last 40 years, why didn’t that happen in the prior 20,000 or more years?]]
It must have- CO2 levels were 1000+ ppm at sum point
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.