Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Scott Pruitt Is Absolutely Right About Carbon Dioxide
Topic Started: Mar 13 2017, 07:46 PM (1,548 Views)
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Meanwhile, with all that global warming it appears that Greenland's ice sheet is "growing like crazy."

Quote:
 
Look at this graph ! Especially the lower one.According to the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), the Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet is way, way higher than the mean.The difference is especially evident in the bottom graph, where you can see the blue line shooting upward.


https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-like-crazy/


How can this be?

Posted Image



Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

W A Mozart
Mar 14 2017, 02:45 AM
Adolph Hipster
Mar 13 2017, 10:28 PM
lucash
Mar 13 2017, 09:39 PM


Mozzie, are you a climate scientist, researcher, or involved otherwise in any scientific field and/or research?

The term "Useful Idiot" comes to mind.
I'd like a Moderator to step-in here.


This guy (see above) has been hurling personal insults at me, over a number of blogs and has been getting away with it.
Why? He needs to barred from the site, warned or reprimanded.

I could easily respond in kind, but I'll wait for a Moderator to make a comment here...

Mozart
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

W A Mozart
Mar 13 2017, 08:17 PM
nNeo
Mar 13 2017, 08:05 PM
CO2 has been understood to be a greenhouse gas since the 1860s. The potential for human emissions to cause warming was theorized in the 1890s. We have a century of study supporting what is now widely accepted science. We can not yet perfectly predict every effect of climate change, but the general trends are not in question. Reputable scientists will continue to debate specific models, & strengths of various feedbacks, but none of that quibbling about detail (which is how science works) is doubt about the basic mechanics. To represent it as such is either deliberately dishonest, or profoundly ignorant. Pruitt is therefore either corrupt or scientifically illiterate, so shouldn't be anywhere near public policy on the environment.
No, CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas.

The youtube video that I keep throwing-up here answers those questions, especially from minutes 10 to 22 in the video. (Look,...!)
Furthermore, the film makes the point that Al Gore got it all wrong when he pointed rise and fall of CO2 as being a precipitator of global warming (also in the film) and point out that the rise in CO2 throughout history ALWAYS followed the rise in global temperatures, by 800 years or so, not preceding it! A very, very important point.

Again, watch..... :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4


Mozart
Quote:
 
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.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM
man's contribution to Co2 is less than 10%.

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.
W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM
man's contribution to Co2 is less than 10%.
CO2 is only .054 of the greenhouse gases.

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.
W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM

one volcano can release as much CO2 as all of our human efforts combined

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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 16 2017, 07:29 PM
W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM
man's contribution to Co2 is less than 10%.

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.
W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM
man's contribution to Co2 is less than 10%.
CO2 is only .054 of the greenhouse gases.

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.

W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM

one volcano can release as much CO2 as all of our human efforts combined

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).
[/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.
W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM
man's contribution to Co2 is less than 10%.
CO2 is only .054 of the greenhouse gases.

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.

W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 12:23 PM

one volcano can release as much CO2 as all of our human efforts combined

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

False....!


Quote:
 
Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity.

There have been times when volcanic activity was ten times greater than in modern times. But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute. The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?


http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

Posted Image

:)


Mozart
Edited by W A Mozart, Mar 16 2017, 08:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

"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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 16 2017, 09:02 PM
"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.
No, there's more...!

Quote:
 
We know, from ice measurements, measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow Alaska, and the South Pole, that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing in our atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. We also know that temperatures have been increasing in that same time interval, as the earth warms up from the “Little Ice Age.” The proponents of the theory that man’s production of CO2 has resulted in this temperature increase, use that idea to predict future temperature increases based on our continuing to use fossil fuels and continuing to force an increase in atmospheric CO2. But, is the increase in CO2 due to man; or is the increase in CO2 natural, due to rising temperatures caused by natural means?

The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.0nbvSr76.dpuf


Posted Image

Again, 210 gigatons vs. 8 gigatons.


:)


Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

The point of the article....

Quote:
 
It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.0nbvSr76.JOyFMMd9.dpuf


CO2 increases are coming from the oceans as a result of slight temperature increases.

Good stuff.

Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 09:28 PM
CO2 increases are coming from the oceans as a result of slight temperature increases.
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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 09:25 PM
The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux.
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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 16 2017, 11:33 PM
W A Mozart
Mar 16 2017, 09:28 PM
CO2 increases are coming from the oceans as a result of slight temperature increases.
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.
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. ( :lol: ) 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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 19 2017, 09:36 AM
as ocean temperatures warm, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures cool, CO2 is absorbed.
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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 19 2017, 09:36 AM
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.
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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

nNeo
Mar 19 2017, 04:30 PM
W A Mozart
Mar 19 2017, 09:36 AM
as ocean temperatures warm, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures cool, CO2 is absorbed.
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
Mar 20 2017, 09:47 AM
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.
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.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply