| Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2017, 07:46 PM (1,548 Views) | |
| W A Mozart | Mar 14 2017, 11:21 AM Post #21 |
|
Meanwhile, with all that global warming it appears that Greenland's ice sheet is "growing like crazy."
https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-like-crazy/ How can this be? ![]() Mozart |
![]() |
|
| Mr. Tik | Mar 14 2017, 02:31 PM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Your "delicate snowflake" routine is rather amusing. By all means, continue. |
|
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up | |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 15 2017, 03:13 PM Post #23 |
|
Slightly above average snowfall for a couple months is not "growing like crazy". Parts of Greenland are getting seasonally high precip because so much more of the surounding ocean is open and warm when it should be frozen. More comparatively warm, moist air is available to produce snow. Net over time, Greenland is still losing ice at an alarming rate. Your graph is surface -- it doesn't include calving losses and bottom melt. The arctic is a mess. Antarctic sea ice is also record low.
Edited by nNeo, Mar 19 2017, 05:41 PM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 15 2017, 03:18 PM Post #24 |
|
Water vapor has a saturation point, CO2, Methane, and other GHGs don't. The effects of water vapor are massive, but fairly constant. Rapidly increasing CO2 has a significant effect on overall energy balance. Comparing it to water doesn't lesson it's impact, any more than comparing a boulder to a mountain makes the boulder "minor" if it falls on you. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM Post #25 |
|
Again, if you view the youtube video above, you'll note that a large portion of it is devoted to CO2. First, they make the important point that man's contribution to Co2 is less than 10%. Second, that CO2 is only .054 of the greenhouse gases. Third, that CO2 is a lagging participant of warming. When the earth is in a warming cycle, CO2 is released from the oceans 500 years or so later. It's a lagging indicator, not a trigger for warming. Most CO2 gases come from decaying vegetation and volcano's. Even if you we were to completely STOP all CO2 emissions from humans, bringing us back to the stone age, one volcano can release as much CO2 as all of our human efforts combined! A sobering thought. Mozart |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 16 2017, 07:29 PM Post #26 |
|
False. CO2 was about 275ppm at the start of the 20th century. It's about 400ppm now. The increase coincides with the mass of carbon humans have released.
False. CO2 is the largest variable portion of GHGs. Water vapor accounts for more of the total, but is fairly constant over time, as I pointed out before. The increase in radiative forcing is foremost from added CO2.
Wildly false. Humans emit about 37,000 million tons of carbon annually. Volcanoes average about 310 million tons. You can find estimates a bit higher or lower for each of those figures, but the consensus is about 110 to 140 times more antropogenic vs volcanic. Additionally, humans are reducing the amount of carbon being sequestered, because of deforestation. The oceans are picking up the slack, with disastrous results (acidification, coral bleaching, algae blooms, etc). Edited by nNeo, Mar 16 2017, 07:31 PM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 16 2017, 08:05 PM Post #27 |
|
[/quote]False. CO2 was about 275ppm at the start of the 20th century. It's about 400ppm now. The increase coincides with the mass of carbon humans have released.
False. CO2 is the largest variable portion of GHGs. Water vapor accounts for more of the total, but is fairly constant over time, as I pointed out before. The increase in radiative forcing is foremost from added CO2. False...! I want you to go to minute 24:28 in the youtube video noted above. And the number is precisely, ....054.
Wildly false. Humans emit about 37,000 million tons of carbon annually. Volcanoes average about 310 million tons. You can find estimates a bit higher or lower for each of those figures, but the consensus is about 110 to 140 times more antropogenic vs volcanic. Additionally, humans are reducing the amount of carbon being sequestered, because of deforestation. The oceans are picking up the slack, with disastrous results (acidification, coral bleaching, algae blooms, etc). False again...! Again, go to minute 24:28 in the youtube video noted above. Mozart |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 16 2017, 08:18 PM Post #28 |
|
Because your obviously agenda driven YouTuber clams so, without supporting evidence? Righto. BS claim is BS. Volcanic emissions: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X Antropogenic emissions from fossil fuels alone are 100+ times that. You can figure that exactly since the oil, gas, and coal industries publish their outputs: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 16 2017, 08:51 PM Post #29 |
|
False....!
http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html ![]() Mozart Edited by W A Mozart, Mar 16 2017, 08:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 16 2017, 09:02 PM Post #30 |
|
"We" are trying to save wetlands, forests, and marine ecosystems because we depend on them for food chain, waste absorption, and breathable air. Yes, plants emit billions of tonnes of CO2, but absorb even more, so net is negative, not positive. Misrepresenting this is either illiteracy of basic biology, or deliberate disinformation. Your silly blogger seems to be ignoring one side of the equation. All the mass of wood or plant fiber grown is less CO2 in the air. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 16 2017, 09:04 PM Post #31 |
|
If all the natural sources remained constant, but human effects are added, what's the net effect? Think in terms of interest on an account. Start with a steady state, remove things (forests) that absorb CO2, and emit extra on top of what's already there. What happens? |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 16 2017, 09:25 PM Post #32 |
|
No, there's more...!
![]() Again, 210 gigatons vs. 8 gigatons. Mozart |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 16 2017, 09:28 PM Post #33 |
|
The point of the article....
CO2 increases are coming from the oceans as a result of slight temperature increases. Good stuff. Mozart |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 16 2017, 11:33 PM Post #34 |
|
Were that true, Ocean pH levels would be rising. They are falling. The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, but still not keeping up with added emissions. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 16 2017, 11:40 PM Post #35 |
|
Ah, your blogger tips his dishonest hand "To and from". If plants emit 105 GT, then absorb 105 GT, that is indeed 210 GT "to and from" but what's the net effect? Zero. If humans emit X, but absorb 0, what's the net effect? +X Net annual antropogenic contribution is now around 37 GT. I have no idea how your blogger came up with 8 (making crap up?) but it's way off. That's about what humans added in 1945. Edited by nNeo, Mar 17 2017, 12:07 AM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 19 2017, 09:36 AM Post #36 |
|
Wrong again. Basic science, as ocean temperatures warm, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures cool, CO2 is absorbed. The point to all of this is central to the fraud that is global warming. Al Gore made the point in his stupid film an "Inconvenient Truth." It is at the very core of the global warmer's argument. That is, ice core samples taken from the Arctic clearly show the relationship between global warming and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's there! There is indeed a correlation. It's been confirmed by other ice core samples as well. But, ....but, here's the point. Al Gore makes the argument that the RISE in CO2 through history of time on earth TRIGGERED (I hate using that word... :oyvey ) the periodic rise in global temperatures, proof positive that what we're doing today, increasing CO2 through burning fossil fuels, is triggering another global warming episode. Er, this from a guy who got a "D" in science when attending Yale. ( ) Gore's point is that this time, the rise in CO2 is man-made and very unnatural. Wrong! Wrong!When in fact the correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures is just the OPPOSITE...! As global temperatures increase throughout time, more and more CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere, proof coming from ice core samples. There is, in fact, a nearly 800 year lag between increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 levels. It takes a long time for oceans to react to changing temperatures. Then, when temperatures begin to cool and a new ice age begins, CO2 levels drop as more and more CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. Again, with another 600 to 800 year time lag. Point? CO2 is not, and never was, the driving greenhouse gas pointing to global temperature changes. Again, it's only .054 of all greenhouse gases and, most importantly, it is a LAGGING indicator. This is at the very core of the lunacy that is the global warming argument. You lose...! Mozart |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 19 2017, 04:30 PM Post #37 |
|
Repeating misinformation doesn't make it more credible. Clearly you didn't understand my reply. If the current rise in atmospheric CO2 was because it was moving from the ocean to the air, the concentration in the ocean would be going down. That isn't happening. Levels are increasing both in the atmosphere and the ocean, consistent with human emissions, which can be easily calculated based on fossil fuel consumption. ".054 of greenhouse gases" is like saying "there's only a little bit of arsenic in my big glass of water" It's about the effects. CO2 is about 20% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287/abstract;jsessionid=2A6BAFB50E8C445543EB2970575AD38E.f04t01 It's nearly doubled within one human lifetime. There's ample evidence that CO2 is a critical forcing while H2O is primarily a feeedback. Edited by nNeo, Mar 19 2017, 06:53 PM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 19 2017, 05:00 PM Post #38 |
|
Ice ages take tens of thousands of years to begin and end. They are driven by insolation variations and are pretty well understood. Cooling the planet for millennia, then thawing it (releasing organic material which has been locked up in ice and frigid water) can certainly affect the atmosphere too, but it's not parallel to AGW, which is a very rapid (in geological terms) rise in greenhouse gases, directly increasing radiative forcing. The bad news is that the effect you are describing will happen too. As permafrost melts and ocean bottom water warms, both CO2 and methane will be released, acting as positive feedback and further increasing warming. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Mar 20 2017, 09:47 AM Post #39 |
|
Nonsense. Point me to the "definitive" study that shows that CO2 is increasing in the oceans, as compared to what point/time in history? It's a ridiculous supposition. Mozart Edited by W A Mozart, Mar 20 2017, 09:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Mar 20 2017, 10:56 AM Post #40 |
|
LOL, you have got to be kidding. Ocean acidification has been widely reported, is easily tested, and not controversial at all. Were you really not aware of it? I'm not sure which study should be considered "definitive" There have been many, all roughly agreeing. Perhaps start with: Sabine C. L. et al., 2004. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305:367-371. Raven, J. A. et al. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Royal Society, London, UK. Caldeira, K., Wickett, M.E., 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425 (6956): 365–365. move on to these for why it's bad: Key, R.M.; Kozyr, A.; Sabine, C.L.; Lee, K.; Wanninkhof, R.; Bullister, J.; Feely, R.A.; Millero, F.; Mordy, C. and Peng, T.-H. (2004). "A global ocean carbon climatology: Results from GLODAP". Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18 Orr J. C., Fabry V. J., Aumont O., Bopp L., Doney S. C., Feely R. A. et al. 2005. "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact oncalcifying organisms". Nature 437 (7059): 681–686. direct measurements at several locations: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-acidity Overviews: http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/methodology/components/ocean-acidification http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/ http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/pdf/UKOA-InfographicV5 there are a couple hundred papers here: http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/ some local effects (it's terrible for the seafood industry, especially shellfish): http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/oysters-hit-hard/ ocean acidification is also killing coral (which then harms other reef species, causing food chain collapses): http://climateinterpreter.org/content/effects-ocean-acidification-coral-reefs The graphic that YOU posted earlier in the thread even shows more CO2 going into the ocean than coming out. It also shows human emissions increasing the amount in the atmosphere, in case you missed that too. Edited by nNeo, Mar 20 2017, 11:02 AM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic » |










) Gore's point is that this time, the rise in CO2 is man-made and very unnatural. Wrong! Wrong!
3:09 PM Jul 11