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

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So instead adding to the discussion, you just resort to immature attempts at ridicule?

Nothing you wrote there is relevant to what is happening today. This rise of CO2 is an anomaly in terms of the history of the Earth's atmosphere.

You would need the entire history of the world in detail to claim that the current rise of CO2 is an anomaly.

You have a few decades at best.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Where did the rise in CO2 come from all of the other times it happened?

Flood basalt eruptions ....

a reply to: jrod

You linked to a post by Phage that I doubt he would even defend anymore. His paper is from 2006 and is no longer valid. It has been superseded by more modern and relevant studies. Namely, the fact that the isotope related to fossil fuels for co2 is not found in enough quantity in the atmosphere to account for the full 40%. At most, it accounts for about half of that. Those studies have been linked in this thread. By all means, continue to use outdated information at will to support your case. That is what Mann is doing every day.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

If the 40%+ rise of CO2 is not from human activity, then where is it coming from?

Where is the CO2 coming from?

And where is the amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuel going? Or is mining coal another leftist illusion?

a reply to: jrod

No it isn't, and proof that it isn't an anomaly was posted in this thread. It is only an anomaly if you arbitrarily decide to stop looking past a certain time period. In this case, most people decide the 400k years is plenty of time to put into fancy charts. Notice sharper increases of co2, as well as a higher average of co2 in the past.



That image is taken from "Analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological eras" as obtained by proxy data. Specifically ice core samples.

Here is Wiki's article on Geological temperature records:

Source

Again, I am not arguing that man has not contributed to co2, I am arguing that man has not contributed as much as the media says (as proven by you thinking it is the entire 40%) and that the overall contribution of warming that man has injected is so trivial as to be a non issue. Co2 warming is logarithmic.

Some of you guys don't see the bigger picture.

You say that Climate Change/Warming is a scam to make money and that the scientists who are promoting this are whores.

You do realize that Fossil fuel companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers who benefit substantially are buying up scientists left and right to make billions more. If you say follow the money. It's big oil, Gas and coal companies and the entrenched monopoly power companies that are benefiting. You've been duped if you believe otherwise.

Then to believe that Climate Change/Global warming is a scam you have to believe that every science department at every University in America and across the globe...all 170 or so countries are lying to us. That every scientific organization like NASA is lying to us. That would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world. It would be impossible to have that many people on the inside of a conspiracy. Too many people. Millions of people all keeping their mouths shut on it.

That isn't logical.

originally posted by: raymundoko


Again, I am not arguing that man has not contributed to co2, I am arguing that man has not contributed as much as the media says (as proven by you thinking it is the entire 40%) and that the overall contribution of warming that man has injected is so trivial as to be a non issue. Co2 warming is logarithmic.

Preindustiral CO2 levels: ~280 ppm

Today's CO2 levels: ~400 ppm

Change: ~120 ppm

120ppm/ 400ppm = ~.42..or about 42%.

I derived the 40% figure without listening to the media.

We can also make a pretty good estimation of how much CO2 is released as a result of us burning fossil fuels.

a reply to: jrod

Again, nobody is arguing the 40% number, the argument, and a scientifically supported one, is that humans don't account for all of it, only about half.

a reply to: raymundoko

Actually there are many who have argued if the 40% increase of CO2 is a legitimate figure, but usually disappear from the these threads when presented with the above information(and sources to verify the values)

We can also estimate the tons of CO2 that 120ppm accounts for and we can also estimate how much CO2 has been released based on oil/coal sales.

Believe it or not, we can calculate a pretty good estimation of how much CO2 has been released as a result of us burning fossil fuels. That figure actually exceeds the tonnage of the excess CO2, that means there is some CO2 that is not accounted for in the equation. Most reason that since the ocean is also gaining more CO2(and becoming more acidic), the unaccounted CO2 from us burning fossil fuels can be found there.

Since you mentioned Phage(ATS's resident debunker), try to debunk this little article:

When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels, there is a strong correlation in the long term trends. This is independently confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12 correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.

originally posted by: amazing
Some of you guys don't see the bigger picture.

You say that Climate Change/Warming is a scam to make money and that the scientists who are promoting this are whores.

You do realize that Fossil fuel companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers who benefit substantially are buying up scientists left and right to make billions more. If you say follow the money. It's big oil, Gas and coal companies and the entrenched monopoly power companies that are benefiting. You've been duped if you believe otherwise.

[snip]

That isn't logical.

Truly amazing that those who are so quick to jump on "Its a scam to raise our taxes" bandwagon, fail to consider this reality of the debacle.

Apparently when someone can make a stirring speech that sounds good and plays one's emotional like a fiddle, no logic is needed to believe whatever is being sold. Saying AGW is a scam to raise taxes will immediately tie the negative emotions of increased taxes to AGW to a naive person. Let's face reality, most people make decisions based on emotions versus logic.

It's easily checkable that CO2 levels have been TWENTY times higher than this OMG LEVEL/sarcasm. You know what happened? Temps rose a little and life FLOURISHED over the world. So let them continue to convince you that breathing kills the planet silly people. Oh yeah, and never look up that any number of single volcanic eruptions have put out more CO2 into the air than all the humans and their toys in all of history put together, and there have been many of these eruptions since we started throwing sticks.

It couldn't be lies for more taxes and control.........


NAHHHHHHHHH

a reply to: thejlxc

Why do you guys repeat the same thing over and over again? You are actually off the mark on the volcano comment. We contribute much more CO2 by burning fossil fuels than the volcanoes, by a long shot.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes

Climate's changed before! NOT LIKE THIS

It's a natural cycle! NOT

The earth was once rich in CO2, then plant life evolved and not only scrubbed a good portion of CO2, it also gave this planet a generous amount of O2.

What we are concerned about, is life being more difficult in the future for our offspring. It is not just CO2, the CH4 increase is another problem we face.

We have changed the balance of the atmosphere, this will have consequences.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels and ravaging the Earth for those fossil fuels is NOT a logical nor moral way of living.

originally posted by: thejlxc
It's easily checkable that CO2 levels have been TWENTY times higher than this OMG LEVEL/sarcasm. You know what happened? Temps rose a little and life FLOURISHED over the world. So let them continue to convince you that breathing kills the planet silly people. Oh yeah, and never look up that any number of single volcanic eruptions have put out more CO2 into the air than all the humans and their toys in all of history put together, and there have been many of these eruptions since we started throwing sticks.

It couldn't be lies for more taxes and control.........


NAHHHHHHHHH

You miss two big points though. A. Try living in Vegas. It's not even summer and close to 100. We just had one of the hottest winters in history. It has been getting hotter here almost every year. That's from personal experience. Too hot to handle any more. Will be moving away as soon as it's feasible to do so. Somewhere much cooler. Those that keep saying warming is good for life on earth have never lived in a location where that warming is really apparent. It's way to hot for humans and getting worse.

B. You say it's lies for more taxes, but what about the flip side which is lies to keep the fossil fuel and power companies in the big bucks.

C. I added C..lol You can't really have millions of people lying and in on a conspiracy. Humans don't work that way..it's too many people on the inside. They can't all be in on the conspiracy. Every university on earth and every scientific organization on earth can't be in on this supposed conspiracy.. That defies logic.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

Again, nobody is arguing the 40% number, the argument, and a scientifically supported one, is that humans don't account for all of it, only about half.

Except that's wrong.

In any case, suppose it were true. What is causing the sudden rate of 'natural' emissions, and why did that start entirely with the industrial use of fossil fuels? What's the *mechanistic* *explanation* and *observational* *evidence* for this new source?

People who do science look at evidence for ALL mechanisms.

Read the thread, I've posted scientifically peer reviewed papers asking just that...

a reply to: mbkennel

First of all, that's not a scientific paper, It's a guest essay. Secondly, that essay basically says "hey, measurements don't match what we say, just go with what my guy says.

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

You have written that you have posted 'scientific' papers over and over again, but I have yet to see any of these links.

Please bring evidence to the discussion, not claims of evidence.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

The papers are in this thread. Proof you haven't even looked at the science behind the 40% numbers. Nobody argued the 40% wasn't the increase. I think it would behoove you to re-read this thread so you stop looking foolish.

The 40% figure is dependent entirely on where they establish a baseline. They have chosen a political baseline rather than a scientific one. It has been deliberately selected at a particular point in time to skew the results to show a "40% increase", rather than the actual decrease displayed in geologic terms.

CO2 has fluctuated wildly over the lifetime of the Earth, both with and without mankind's presence. It has, however, been the norm throughout that time until very recently that CO2 has been on the high end of the scale. Politically oriented "Changers" simply select a recent time that CO2 was at an unnaturally low level, and promote the notion that level is "normal", and therefore ignore the science of what has been a historical reality concerning CO2 levels.

Its a similar argument to picking river levels during a 30 year drought and redefining that level to be a new "normal", then claiming anything over that - like when the drought is over and the river returns to actual normal levels - is actually flood level.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

If the 40%+ rise of CO2 is not from human activity, then where is it coming from?

Where is the CO2 coming from?

And where is the amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuel going? Or is mining coal another leftist illusion?

Very nearly. I live in what used to be "Coal Country" - the scale of mining is nothing at all like it was when I was younger. It's fallen so drastically that the local economy is just about dead - which, oddly enough, is OK by me. It means more people are leaving the area for industrial centers... or what's left of industrial centers in the US, anyhow, which leaves more space for me. It's a win-win situation.

From where I sit, I can see literal mountains of mine spoils that came out of these hills. Literal mountains made from hollowing these mountains out, and those spoils mountains were not there at all 80 years ago, according to old topographic maps of the area. A house that my grandparents lived in when they got married is at the bottom of one of those new mountains. There is nowhere near that level of activity in coal mining any more.

a reply to: nenothtu

I get the 40% figure directly from NOAA.



www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Video of CO2 pollution from Fossil Fuel Combustion, Source: NOAA