NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: raymundoko
Your request is absurd and unnecessary, we've gone over this. Still no comment on the peer reviewed papers?

a reply to: jrod

It is absurd that you claim to hold advance degrees yet can not accept the reality of the CO2 problem that we have created.

I want to take care of this planet, not continue to destroy it in the name of profit and power.

What problem? If there is a problem, we are causing it ourselves, not by CO2 emissions, but by cutting rain forest. Greens thrives off CO2 and turns it into oxygen, the stuff that we live off. The more CO2, the more things grow and the more oxygen for us and other creatures to breathe. The atmosphere contains around 0.04% to 0.05% CO2. It is what makes the planet habitable for us.

Half a billion years ago the CO2 level was 0.8 to 1% - and the oxygen levels were higher as a result, and there were large creatures such as dinosaurs.

If anything, we are slowly heading towards another ice age.

originally posted by: mbkennel
So the Cretaceous was about 4 degrees C warmer. We're going to get 4 degrees C easy with current rate without changes and maybe 6 to 8. That's absolutely ENORMOUS change in 150 years.

Is this just an opinion, hearsay or do you actually have any evidence of this? Because, aside from artificial computer models that can be made to show whatever you want them to show, I have yet to find anything that shows that human influence is causing any difference whatsoever in the current 0.04% (and decreasing) CO2 content in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mbkennel

A poor analogy.

Do you suggest that humans will go extinct because the planet warms by 6 degrees?

Extinct? Literally, no. Collapse of significant technological civilization supporting 9 billion people in comfort, quite possibly yes.

Major wars, famines, disasters, droughts, possibly. A collapse like going from the height of the Roman Empire (say Aurelius) to the Dark Ages.

6 degrees C is a titanic climate change as a global average.

The Ice Ages were 4-6 degrees C colder than preindustrial civilizatnion.

There was almost no agriculture then. Ice was miles thick in New York. What do you think a Heat Age in the other direction might be like?

Our big planetary neighbour (no, not Jupiter -- I mean the Sun) is from time to time causing far greater climate changes than that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: moniker

For how long has records been taken? 200 years? That is nothing in the big scheme of things.

We're not really concerned with "the big scheme of things" though, are we?
We are concerned about the next 100 years or so, not the next 10,000.

My point is that climate changes all the time (as it should), and that 200 years is just to short a period of time to draw any informed conclusions from whatsoever.

originally posted by: moniker


What problem? If there is a problem, we are causing it ourselves, not by CO2 emissions, but by cutting rain forest. Greens thrives off CO2 and turns it into oxygen, the stuff that we live off. The more CO2, the more things grow and the more oxygen for us and other creatures to breathe. The atmosphere contains around 0.04% to 0.05% CO2. It is what makes the planet habitable for us.

Half a billion years ago the CO2 level was 0.8 to 1% - and the oxygen levels were higher as a result, and there were large creatures such as dinosaurs.

If anything, we are slowly heading towards another ice age.

I'm pretty sure when CO2 levels go up, O2 levels go down. We are actually observing this today.

Obviously more trees would be of help, but you are ignoring the large amount of CO2 that is now being constantly released into the atmosphere as a direct result of human activities.

More trees, more phytoplankton would be a greater sink of CO2.

We still have to figure out what do with the enormous source of CO2 that we obviously are responsible for.

a reply to: jrod

O2 has been dropping for the last 10000 years with or without an increase or decrease in CO2. Released carbon also does little to reduce Oxygen (although it does reduce it in appreciable amounts [appreciable as in important, not large]) in the atmosphere and that which it does do can be completely reversed with reforestation.

It is agreed upon that the continuous drop in CO2 is most likely due to the destruction of earths flora during the ice ages. As the earth warms after an ice age o2 rises slightly again, however the ice ages/glacial periods get closer and closer together as the earth ages, causing the o2 rebound to be smaller and smaller each time, the net result being an ever decreasing concentration of o2 (Although still higher today than during past extinction events)

Example: 1.5mya we had a significant glacial period (Ice Age), then the next significant one was around 900kya, then 600kya, then 415kya, 350kya, 275kya, 150kya and the last one just 10kya. ( These time periods are not long enough for the earths flora to rebound enough to breakdown water in the soil and put o2 back into the atmosphere. Prior to our relatively recent earth history (last few million years) the earth would go for tens of millions of years without a glacial period, allowing o2 to build up.

University of California: Temperature
Good Essay on o2 levels through history

However, you should be informed that it is also accepted, scientifically, that human carbon emissions are resulting in a greener earth:

Geophysical Research Papers

the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.p/quote]

So that is a paper from 2013 confirming that in areas where there was at least some water, the earth greened, and it could be directly measured against human carbon output.

For reference, here is an article by NASA in 2003 that said the same thing about the decade leading up to 2003.

NASA

Nemani says it would be nice if the next decade were as favorable for plants as the past two seem to have been. “Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing yet whether climate changes will continue to have a positive effect on vegetation productivity,”

So as stated in the peer reviewed paper above from 2013, "climate change" continued to have a positive impact on plant life.

The correction for Man doesn't need to come through ridiculous Carbon measures, but from conservation, reforestation and cleaner energy. (This includes a less toxic solar panel)

P.S. If you want to use SoCal as an example to counter these scientific articles, see:

NOAA: SoCal Drought Natural, not from AGW

edit on 18-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

a reply to: raymundoko
Currently we are observing O2 levels dropping, this corresponds with the rising CO2 levels.

Combustion consumes O2....pretty obvious connection there.

I said that in the first paragraph of my post...do you intentionally ignore data?

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

I suppose I misread your post, i did reply via cellphone in haste....I thought you wrote that O2 levels were rising.

This thread has run its course in my opinion.

I like your edit notes. Look at the time of your reply, I would have been past my edit window.

a reply to: jrod

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: nenothtu

I say we adapt by using our brains and keeping the fossil carbon where it lay unmolested.

I say we adapt by adapting. that involves adapting to the climate as it comes, not trying to adapt the planet to what we want. The planet will win that fight.

Why are you so confident a huge climate change in a short time will be better than a smaller climate change?

It's neither "better" nor "worse" - is just "is". We must adapt to what is, not what we want to force it to be. If it's ice that comes rather than heat, we still have to adapt to it. We always have - that's what life does, if it is to remain successful.

originally posted by: jrod

I'm pretty sure when CO2 levels go up, O2 levels go down. We are actually observing this today.

Negative.

During the Carboniferous period, early on, CO2 was at about 1500 ppm. Life exploded in diversity. Tropical rainforest covered most of the planet. Because of that, oxygen was at 35%, compared to the paltry 21% of today's climate. Towards the end of the Carboniferous, Co2 fell to around 350 ppm. the rain forests collapsed (the "Carboniferous Rain Forest Collapse" - look it up), and oxygen levels fell drastically, along with temperatures, leading to a desertification of the planet during the following Permian period. Cooler temperatures lead to a dryer climate, because available moisture is no longer available - it gets locked up in ice caps. Global temperatures were around 14 degrees higher than now (about 20C/68 deg F) and plummeted to around 10 degrees F cooler after the rainforest collapse and into the Permian.

During the Jurassic, following the Permian and the Triassic, CO2 levels once again normalized themselves to 1800 ppm, and life took off again.

Bugs can be a problem under those conditions if you're squeamish. Around here, there were cockroaches nearly a foot long, and a species of centipede (Arthropleura) that was around 8 feet long, and dragon flies with 30 inch wingspans. Apparently the higher oxygen content of the atmosphere promotes bigger bugs. Something to do with the way they extract oxygen from the atmosphere.

Obviously more trees would be of help, but you are ignoring the large amount of CO2 that is now being constantly released into the atmosphere as a direct result of human activities.

"Large amount" is still a relative term, but more CO2 is good, so I'm good with any little bit that helps. Out of the last 600 million years of Earth's history, only the late Carboniferous/Permian eras and our present period (the Quaternary) have seen CO2 levels below 400 ppm.

More trees, more phytoplankton would be a greater sink of CO2.

No doubt about that - it DOES seem to regulate itself, doesn't it?

We still have to figure out what do with the enormous source of CO2 that we obviously are responsible for.

Let it fly free - let the planet come back to life! Down with deserts and droughts!

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ... ( March 2007 )

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

To my knowledge, that's been disproven:

The whole solar system could be moving through warmer outer space.

or a changing gravity gradient.

Wat?

I have never heard this before. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Technically, the exact scientific definition of temperature is the speed (kinetic energy) of the molecules in question. I was thinking more generally of a region of space that had more particles or faster particles or more background radiation or any combination of the three. Anything that increases the speed of molecules could be considered "warmer".

Mostly I wanted to call to mind the idea that we don't know many details, possibly important details, about the space and energy levels that surround the solar system

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: mbkennel
So the Cretaceous was about 4 degrees C warmer. We're going to get 4 degrees C easy with current rate without changes and maybe 6 to 8. That's absolutely ENORMOUS change in 150 years.

Is this just an opinion, hearsay or do you actually have any evidence of this? Because, aside from artificial computer models that can be made to show whatever you want them to show, I have yet to find anything that shows that human influence is causing any difference whatsoever in the current 0.04% (and decreasing) CO2 content in the atmosphere.

The evidence is of course enormous. Do you deny the rapidly increasing CO2 concentration?

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: nenothtu

Positive.

Charles Keeling measures CO2. It's increasing. His son measures O2---the technical challenges for sufficient precision are substantially higher. It's going down, as predicted.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: jrod

I'm pretty sure when CO2 levels go up, O2 levels go down. We are actually observing this today.

Negative.

During the Carboniferous period, early on, CO2 was at about 1500 ppm. Life exploded in diversity. Tropical rainforest covered most of the planet. Because of that, oxygen was at 35%, compared to the paltry 21% of today's climate. Towards the end of the Carboniferous, Co2 fell to around 350 ppm. the rain forests collapsed (the "Carboniferous Rain Forest Collapse" - look it up), and oxygen levels fell drastically, along with temperatures, leading to a desertification of the planet during the following Permian period. Cooler temperatures lead to a dryer climate, because available moisture is no longer available - it gets locked up in ice caps. Global temperatures were around 14 degrees higher than now (about 20C/68 deg F) and plummeted to around 10 degrees F cooler after the rainforest collapse and into the Permian.

So, atmospheric CO2 has a profound and substantial influence on climate, no?

At that time two things were substantially different:

a) Bacteria and fungi had not yet evolved the capability to digest some of the tough plant parts. So plants were fossilized and over millions of years their carbon was removed from the atmosphere as they didn't decay. Today, that is no longer true, if we grow like the Cretaceous, dead plants will decay and re-release their carbon into the atmosphere.

b) The Sun wasn't as bright. So a given level of greenhouse gas wouldn't result in as hot a climate.

So today, if the carbon which was locked up and fossilized by those ancient plants is re-released by humans digging it up and burning it:

c) it will get even hotter
d) it will never go away

That level of climate change would result in near total collapse of technological human civilization, in particular since it would be so instantaneous geologically.

originally posted by: nenothtu

"Large amount" is still a relative term, but more CO2 is good, so I'm good with any little bit that helps. Out of the last 600 million years of Earth's history, only the late Carboniferous/Permian eras and our present period (the Quaternary) have seen CO2 levels below 400 ppm.

600 millon years? You mean when multicellular life was starting to evolve?

What was the climate in which Homo Sapiens evolved? (answer; no more than 300 ppm)

The notion that since some kind of life once existed with higher carbon levels is a preposterous and profoundly dangerous reason to accept those levels now.

Especially with the hotter sun.

The argument isn't about roaches or jellyfish, it's about us. Save the #ing humans.