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

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

I get the 40% figure directly from NOAA.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

I have no reason to doubt that you got that figure from NOAA. Regardless of where you got it from, how does it negate what I said? Is NOAA (a governmental organization, I might point out - and politics IS the government's stock in trade!) somehow incapable of starting their CO2 clock at an arbitrary point that "supports" the political conclusion they would like for you to draw?

Does NOAA being the source of the figure magically negate the traditionally much higher levels of CO2 that Earth has endured and survived (and actually thrived through), before humans ever walked it?

When does the "pre-industrial" figure you cite come from? What year? An approximate year will do -and what percentage of the 4.5 billion years or so of Earth's existence does that tiny span account for?

BTW - while the massive increase in oxygen WAS propagated by "plants", it wasn't the traditional plants we all think of. It was produced before land plants ever took root, in microbial mats and stromatolites in shallow seas. "massive increase in oxygen" is also a relative term - we are at O2 levels right now that are under 2/3 of what they were when life was booming during the Carboniferous (21% O2 vs. 35% O2). When is the government going to address our currently oxygen-impoverished atmosphere? The point to be made here is that atmospheric gasses fluctuate - with or without human "help".

a reply to: nenothtu

Did you take the time look at the video I added to the thread?

Video of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion

This is disinfo 101 in my opinion. You completely ignore the evidence presented by the experts(by calling in to question NOAA's estimation of 280ppm being pre-industry CO2 level. Then you go on to imply to make ancient history of the earth's atmosphere as somehow relevant to the apparent CO2 rise as a direct result of human burning fossil fuels.

a reply to: jrod

Wow, missed a bunch of typos as usual.

Let me re-iterate the point I was trying to get across:

You do NOT think the 280 ppm is a accurate starting point because it is endorsed by NOAA scientists. They are NOT credible because they are government scientists?

Then you assume I am an ignorant of the history of atmosphere changes and try to 'educate me' in a way that makes it appear I am ignorant on the subject at hand. Ancient times did not have a species that release so much CO2 in the atmosphere in such a short time. The timescale it took the plant kingdom to transform the planet into an O2 rich world was millions of years. We are making these big changes to this planet's chemistry in just a few centuries.

a reply to: jrod

Surely you are jesting? This invalidates you completely in this thread if you are serious. Go to posts by me in this thread.

You quoted my posts that contained links to papers...

Again, see my post on just the last page.

Not only do I include a pretty picture for you, I also gave you the paper it was lifted from. A paper published by This guy

And used in such publications as "Biodiversity and Earth History" available on google books.

However this appears to be your tactic. Let time go by then accuse someone of not backing their stance with science. Here is a reply to you way early in the thread because you had done this exact same thing:

a reply to: raymundoko

Several papers included.

a reply to: raymundoko

Another.

a reply to: raymundoko

Another.

a reply to: raymundoko

Another.

a reply to: raymundoko

Another...get the point?

Edit: I suggest you follow my suggestion here:

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.

It will probably do well for you.

originally posted by: nenothtu
When does the "pre-industrial" figure you cite come from? What year? An approximate year will do -and what percentage of the 4.5 billion years or so of Earth's existence does that tiny span account for?

Pre-industrial CO2 in this field means the level which existed from the end of the previous Ice Age, to about 1750.

It's a small percentage of Earth's geological history and the entirety of human civilization.

Appealing to "dinosaurs and plants were around when CO2 was higher" is completely and dangerously irrelevant to appropriate behavior by humans NOW, at least as irrelevant as a shark's diet is to human health recommendations.

a reply to: nenothtu

Why do you think they started at an arbitrary point? They started at a point that is supported by the scientific process. Even high end estimates for the start at 330 PPM pre industrial levels still show that we have increased a good amount since the early 1800's.

Arbitrary indicates they randomly picked a number. The number had pretty solid evidence to support it.

The problem really is the fact that truths, half truths and downright lies are all mixed in together in a dance to deceive the public.

Sure man has been putting co2 into the atmosphere. But to blame the industrial revolution as the major factor is just one big lie.

Many things have happened to contribute to rising co2 levels.

By far the biggest one has been the fact that we have stripped the Earth of plants. The huge forests over Europe, North America, South America, Australia .... the whole damn world .... has had an enormous impact.

But hey, lets not look at that cause, there is no money to be had in simply planting trees! Where would we plant them anyway. Local Government wants to do away with trees because they are a nuisance.

Consider the massive decrease in CO2 left by Forest fires. Imagine the sheer scale of fires prior to humans being active and effective at putting them out. That is one for our side.

Remember also, we have gone from 280 ppm. ppm is parts per million. Consider that for a moment. Parts Per Million. Another way of expressing that is .0280%. Does not seem like much does it.

Further, the lie that CO2 actually causes all of the Global Warming .... that is not really happening ... or is it.

Hard to tell with Governments playing with the figures.

Hey, here is an idea. Do a search on ATS for Methane and open your eyes.

P

ETA, just in case you are not aware, plants breath in CO2 and breathe out O2.

a reply to: raymundoko

You claim to be an expert of this subject, yet sometime in the past you would not produce a simple resident time calculation for CO2.

You claim to have linked the calculations, I have yet to see this link. Just show the work on the resident time calculations using ATS's reply feature.

Again I will write this; show me your resident time calculations that shows that humans are not responsible for the 40% rise. I think that is your argument in this thread, that humans are not responsible for the all of the 40% increase we have measured.

Just providing a link that shows such calculations is too likely to be someone else not your work, but I still would like to see them. I will not dig through your posts to find a magical link that you always seem to claim you have already provided. The Burden of Proof is on you bud.

I almost feel like I am being trolled here. I make mistakes but I post on here because I like to see the raw data and hope to get an idea of what others believe on the issue, most importantly I am on here because I would to look for solutions to the problem, not add to the problem, and certainly not ignore the problems we have. I get discouraged when the rhetoric becomes non-logical and scientific-free one liners that seem to be parroted over and over again in these threads.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

Did you take the time look at the video I added to the thread?

Video of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion

Well! that certainly was alarming looking wasn't it? With all that red, I'm amazed the earth hasn't burst into flame already! I think I should run right out and buy a carbon credit or something!

This is disinfo 101 in my opinion.

There's that "disinfo" word again, and I'm still not surprised. I think you may be right, though - it certainly appeared to be the most basic level of disinformatziyy.

You completely ignore the evidence presented by the experts(by calling in to question NOAA's estimation of 280ppm being pre-industry CO2 level. Then you go on to imply to make ancient history of the earth's atmosphere as somehow relevant to the apparent CO2 rise as a direct result of human burning fossil fuels.

You misread me - I did not question their estimates of the concentration, I questioned their cherry-picking of a time frame favorable to promoting their political agenda. I'm sure that at some "pre-industrial" time, there was only 280 ppm - just as I am sure that at another time, also "pre-industrial", there was a concentration of over 20 times the current concentration - yet the Earth manged to somehow not only survive, but also to thrive.

I'm also aware that throughout Earth's entire history, with only one notable exception before the current time, CO2 levels have ALWAYS been higher, and generally MUCH higher, than they are now. The argument that the other side is making is that Earth's history is entirely irrelevant - until you get to the Ice Ages. then it suddenly becomes relevant, and we can start calling it "pre-industrial" for purposes of CO2 comparison. The other 99.9+ percent of Earth's history suddenly do not matter. That was somehow not "pre-industrial".

There are reasons for all of these verbal manipulations intended to promote the notion of "industrial" (i.e "bad") and "pre-industrial" (i.e. "good"), and limiting the "good" and "pre-industrial" to a time frame that is politically expedient.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: jrod

Wow, missed a bunch of typos as usual.

Let me re-iterate the point I was trying to get across:

You do NOT think the 280 ppm is a accurate starting point because it is endorsed by NOAA scientists. They are NOT credible because they are government scientists?

No, I think it is not an accurate "starting point" because the history of the Earth - and her climate - actually STARTED long, LONG before that time period. I think it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to use a time period far, far antecedent to even the "middle" and call it a "starting point".

The fact that NOAA are not credible because they work for the government is merely ancillary to that. It should be self evident that a political organization promotes a political agenda - isn't that the very reason YOU reject other science?

Then you assume I am an ignorant of the history of atmosphere changes and try to 'educate me' in a way that makes it appear I am ignorant on the subject at hand. Ancient times did not have a species that release so much CO2 in the atmosphere in such a short time. The timescale it took the plant kingdom to transform the planet into an O2 rich world was millions of years. We are making these big changes to this planet's chemistry in just a few centuries.

I suppose not - you cannot "release" what is already preset in the atmosphere. No one had to "release" it - it was already there. If you are absolutely certain this is the direction you want to take this discussion, we can most certainly go there. I only ask that you make certain that's what you want to do before we go down that road.

It may get kinda bumpy.

I don't know if you are "ignorant" of those prehistoric atmospheric changes or not. The choice is either ignorance of them or deliberate obfuscation of them. So you tell me which it is.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: nenothtu
When does the "pre-industrial" figure you cite come from? What year? An approximate year will do -and what percentage of the 4.5 billion years or so of Earth's existence does that tiny span account for?

Pre-industrial CO2 in this field means the level which existed from the end of the previous Ice Age, to about 1750.

It's a small percentage of Earth's geological history and the entirety of human civilization.

Appealing to "dinosaurs and plants were around when CO2 was higher" is completely and dangerously irrelevant to appropriate behavior by humans NOW, at least as irrelevant as a shark's diet is to human health recommendations.

Exactly as I said above - the opposition is promoting the dangerous notion that only ice ages are now "relevant", and the remaining 99.9+ percent of Earth's history is somehow not relevant to Earth. Not only is the rest of Earth's history "not relevant" to them, it now appears to be "dangerously irrelevant".

So tell me, how are living organisms "irrelevant" to life? Why are the aberrations of ice ages the only "relevant" time to consider?

How does a "shark's diet" figure into this at all? Do they eat CO2 and excrete O2 or something?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: nenothtu

Why do you think they started at an arbitrary point? They started at a point that is supported by the scientific process. Even high end estimates for the start at 330 PPM pre industrial levels still show that we have increased a good amount since the early 1800's.

Arbitrary indicates they randomly picked a number. The number had pretty solid evidence to support it.

I'm not sure I follow you here - "solid evidence" for what? That CO2 magically started doing "evil things" then, or that CO2 magically popped into existence then?

Even 330 ppm, or 400 ppm, is nothing on a geologic scale of things. It represents a relative CO2 impoverishment. The gorilla in the room here is that the CO2 drop is one of the reasons we even HAD ice ages, far from them being the norm to set as a baseline.

I don't know about you, but I don't like freezing. I'm not entirely sure why other folks fight so hard to promote it.

a reply to: nenothtu

Again, you dismiss good evidence that shows humans contribution to CO2 and then go to what appears to me, an ad hominem attack on the data and visual representation of the increase of CO2. Please kindly pull your head out of your arse and present this thread with evidence, NOT your scientifically illiterate opinion/rant

I say you bring disinfo to the discussion and you do it again, even after freaking out over my use of the work disinfo:

There are reasons for all of these verbal manipulations intended to promote the notion of "industrial" (i.e "bad") and "pre-industrial" (i.e. "good"), and limiting the "good" and "pre-industrial" to a time frame that is politically expedient.

That right there is YOUR attempt at disinformation.

So when in Earth's history has a species contributed this much CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere in such a short amount of time?

Right now if this trend continues, we will have doubled the per-industrial CO2 levels in less than a century from today. You really have to pull the wool over your eyes to not see this is a significant problem.

a reply to: jrod

I just provided you with the link to my post which includes the residence time calculations as supported by the IPCC...I literally linked it for you...

Are you again falling back on the nonsensical argument that you want me to literally complete a residence time calculation of co2? Using what parameters? For what purpose? I went over this with you already. Why would I need to do that when I absolutely and totally agree with the IPCC's assessment? Their assessment supports my viewpoint, and I have linked directly to the IPCC's raw data to show that. I provided the proof, you are the one refusing to read it. Now get off this straw man and actually read the thread and the side data associated with it. Otherwise go back to watching Cosmos.

Edit: I feel like I am Michael in an episode of arrested development talking to Gob.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: nenothtu

Why do you think they started at an arbitrary point? They started at a point that is supported by the scientific process. Even high end estimates for the start at 330 PPM pre industrial levels still show that we have increased a good amount since the early 1800's.

Arbitrary indicates they randomly picked a number. The number had pretty solid evidence to support it.

BULL#!!!

CO2 levels were at 330ppm in the mid 1970's.

You are also trying to call my education into question. I was a meteorology major and I dropped out because I could not afford college and joined the Navy. I took 3000 and 4000 level classes on this topic(junior and senior) so the notion than I took MET 101 and now think I am expert is an invalid one. I do NOT claim to be an expert, but I am clearly more experienced in this subject than most.

You claim to be the expert, yet refuse to show any resident time calculation that back up your claim that burning fossil fuels is responsible for the fast rate of CO2 increase.

a reply to: nenothtu

I mean solid evidence that co2 was somewhere between 280 and 330 PPM before the industrial revolution.

I have said it before and I will say it again, though I probably won't live to see it, I can't wait for co2 to be back to a healthy place (600-1200PPM) for the earth.

I authored another thread that reviewed testimony from leading climate scientists, all of whom either currently contribute or have contributed to the IPCC, stating that humans can become carbon neutral/negative with reforestation alone and conservationist policies without having to sacrifice our standard of living. Imagine what humans could accomplish if we were carbon neutral with our CURRENT technology once we advance past it. We'll be like high-tech Native Americans, one with our planet and all that.

The issue I have with our current technology isn't even the co2, it's all the other toxins we put into our biosphere.

a reply to: raymundoko

BULL# again!

Right now your claims are nothing but hot air. I do not have time to dig through all your posts to find some link that you claim to have provided.

Why can't we see your resident time calculations? You claim to be an expert, therefore it should be easy for you to provide ATS with your resident time calculations(Need to see the work)?

a reply to: jrod

So you were taking 400/4000 level courses before you completed core? Interesting. Discussing your college curriculum is immaterial however and an attempt at argument from authority on your part. Ultimately you haven't fully researched this. You should stop getting your info from barely-passed-high school-contributors on Skeptical Science.

Here you go, let me give you something easy to read, and this is from the Geophysical Research Letters, a widely accepted journal.

This specifically is from: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009

Wiley Offsite PDF

1. Introduction
[2] Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted
annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities
[Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40%
[Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the
rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about
equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]. This airborne fraction
of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed
remarkably constant over the past five decades [Jones and
Cox, 2005], but if it were to increase in a way predicted by
models, this could add another 500 ppm of CO2 to the
atmosphere by 2100 [Friedlingstein et al., 2006], significantly
more than the current total. While recent studies have
highlighted a decreasing ability of the Earth system to
absorb the excess CO2 [Le Que´re´ et al., 2007; Schuster
and Watson, 2007; Canadell et al., 2007], the question if
and why the airborne fraction has stayed constant at the
decadal time scale has received less attention.

The analysis further shows that the statistical
model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the
available data if emissions from land use change are scaled
down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the
predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend
in the airborne fraction can be found

. If process models are
used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in
order to answer the question of why the AF has remained
constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale
fluctuations or a stronger secular trend.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

Again, you dismiss good evidence that shows humans contribution to CO2 and then go to what appears to me, an ad hominem attack on the data and visual representation of the increase of CO2.

???

Humans are not creating new CO2 - not in any appreciable amounts, anyhow. They ARE releasing some of the CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs, where it stands a chance of making the planet healthy again, but they are still far behind in that. Human activity just can't make up the differential, but we ARE trying! They do not contribute "none" of the CO2, but neither are they capable of contributing your alarmingly overestimated amounts, either. "Increased CO2" is an entirely separate issue from "anthropogenic CO2".

It's not possible to commit an "ad hominem attack" on DATA. Do you know what "ad hominem" means?

Please kindly pull your head out of your arse and present this thread with evidence, NOT your scientifically illiterate opinion/rant

Nice. Wanna compare collegiate docs?

I say you bring disinfo to the discussion and you do it again, even after freaking out over my use of the work disinfo:

Nice. Care to salt in any other overly used catch phrases? I guess it's better than your attempts to sound like a psychologist earlier, though... but I still don't believe you are an intelligence operative, either, just because you use half of an intelligence term.

I don't "freak out" over very much at all, and have not "freaked out" over anything at all in this thread. if I "freak out" over anything here, it will be obvious, and you will likely be the first to know.

..."There are reasons for all of these verbal manipulations intended to promote the notion of "industrial" (i.e "bad") and "pre-industrial" (i.e. "good"), and limiting the "good" and "pre-industrial" to a time frame that is politically expedient." ...

That right there is YOUR attempt at disinformation.

Alrighty then, Mr. Bond. here is your chance to shine. Explain to us, in exact terms, just how that quote qualifies as "disinformation". Bonus points if you can salt in any other intelligence community terms to misuse, and even more bonus points if you can show how that quote actually defines an instance of "disinformation".

Are you certain you know the correct definition of "disinformation"?

So when in Earth's history has a species contributed this much CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere in such a short amount of time?

How could anyone put it there when it was ALREADY there? Have you heard any of my argument at all?

Right now if this trend continues, we will have doubled the per-industrial CO2 levels in less than a century from today. You really have to pull the wool over your eyes to not see this is a significant problem.

One can only hope we can manage to get that much back into the atmosphere, and get back on the road to a healthy planet. I don't think we can get it done, but hope springs eternal I suppose. By "pre-industrial" I am assuming you are referring the the ice age segment of the "pre-industrial" Earth, not any of the other "pre-induistrial" segements of history.

I can't wear wool. I'm allergic to it. So you'll have to tell me - where is this "significant problem" you speak of? What do you have against having a healthy planet? You just like freezing or something? You hate plants? Prefer desert and tundra? Where is the "significant problem" in getting back to a healthy planet instead of a barren one?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: nenothtu

I mean solid evidence that co2 was somewhere between 280 and 330 PPM before the industrial revolution.

I have said it before and I will say it again, though I probably won't live to see it, I can't wait for co2 to be back to a healthy place (600-1200PPM) for the earth.

I authored another thread that reviewed testimony from leading climate scientists, all of whom either currently contribute or have contributed to the IPCC, stating that humans can become carbon neutral/negative with reforestation alone and conservationist policies without having to sacrifice our standard of living. Imagine what humans could accomplish if we were carbon neutral with our CURRENT technology once we advance past it. We'll be like high-tech Native Americans, one with our planet and all that.

The issue I have with our current technology isn't even the co2, it's all the other toxins we put into our biosphere.

Well, we're just about on the same page then.

I don't think you or I will live long enough to see any appreciable reforestation, though. It's not politically expedient. It was once claimed that in 1650, a squirrel could travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River using only treetops, and never once touching the ground.

We have a long way to go to get back to even that, much less getting back into a proper and healthy carbon balance.