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

a reply to: raymundoko

That figure does not account for CO2 that now resides longer in the atmosphere as a result of less natural CO2 sinks that have been destroyed by human activity.

From 280 to 400ppm CO2 is the consensus from thousands of scientists around the globe. This figure will continue to rise...

a reply to: jrod

Is this abundance of Co2 causing all the trees, and shrubbery to grow faster ??

I landscape and things are growing like on STEROIDS!

I tire of the SCIENCE argument, primarily because ANYONE should realize that much of it , can, and IS swayed, changed, lied about on a constant basis.

Only in fairy tale land can we sit back and believe that unfettered SCIENCE, has ever been allowed to be in Control of.....

Wait for it .................... S C I E N C E

Yes it does...

I'm also not arguing the 280 to 400 either. But isotopes don't lie, and only 4% is ours.

a reply to: jrod

Climate change are real, the proposed solutions however are not.

It's a waste of time trying to point fingers at the sun, cows or us humans. We all know what is happening.

The difference between weather and climate:


Or maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson is also a payed shill ?

a reply to: kloejen

Who is arguing the climate isn't changing? We've been warming for 10k years.

a reply to: raymundoko

We've been warming for 10k years.

Not really. There was a rather sudden warming which pretty much leveled off 10,000 years ago with some up and down blips since. The trend, until recently, has been downward.
www.globalwarmingart.com...

www.globalwarmingart.com...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

Oh jeez...I think you know full well what I meant, but to be exact we are currently in a warming period. We are significantly warmer than the last ice age.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: raymundoko
I must have misunderstood.

You said we've been warming for 10,000 years.
Warming means ongoing. Warm means a steady state. We are currently warming but have not been for 10,000 years.

Yes, you are correct, but i was just ball parking from my phone. I've posted a few times with links that include our current warming cycle.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: raymundoko

4% can be attributed directly to our burning of fossil fuels. We also have to consider that with less CO2 sinks, as well as extra CO2 sources, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is now longer that it was a few hundred years ago. Because of this the 4% figure is deceptively low.

As far as I know, there is no accurate way to estimate how much CO2 longer stays in the atmosphere now as a result of us destroying CO2 sinks.

We do know that 280ppm is a good figure for CO2 pre the industrial age CO2 concentration. Now the figure is at 400ppm and rising. A 120ppm difference, 120/280*100%=42.8% increase of CO2.

A 40% increase in CO2 concentration as a result of the industrial revolution is apparent.

No, the 40% increase is from both natural and unnatural. Man accounts for 4-5% of total or 10-12% of the increase. You are welcome to challenge that number but even the IPCC assessment shows 5%.

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

I do believe most experts in atmospheric chemistry agree the 280 to 400ppm CO2 increase can be attributed to human activity.

What are these extra natural sources for CO2? It is not volcanic activity.

a reply to: jrod

No, you've misread papers. True the 280-400 is post industrial, but only 4-5% of total is mans. Isotopes confirm this and the IPCC agrees. The total is 29 of 550 gigatons.

a reply to: raymundoko
We output over 29 gigatonnes of CO2 annually, so what are you saying?

That our CO2 is what's being recycled and nature's keeps accumulating because the sinks are taking ours first?

a reply to: raymundoko

I understand where the 4% comes from. That figure is misleading.

280 to 400ppm is over a 40% increase in CO2 concentration. This figure is alarming and in no way misleading.

It isn't misleading at all...it's an actual number...

Yes, co2 has increased by 40%...roughly 10-12% of that increase is due to man (some estimates say 30%) It's an actual scientific measurement supported by the IPCC...it just isn't touted on global warming blogs you so obviously read as you keep bringing up volcanoes.

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: jrod

Liberals aka the anti-nuclear movement is to blame...just ask Phage.

He showed me an awesome graph that proved my point and then quit talking in my other thread.

a reply to: Greven

Actually natural sinks absorb 60% of our co2. You can even look that up on Wikipedia. Again, I already know we are in a warming period. I don't think co2 plays as much of a role as media and governments would like us to believe. We could literally have reversed all of humanity's global carbon footprint by addressing ecological issues. However money keeps going to wars and globalization. I posted an earlier thread with accepted global warming experts, you should give it a read. I linked it to phage earlier in this thread.

The earth has had insanely higher levels if co2 in the past. The result was megafauna and an oxygen rich atmosphere thick with humidity. Sounds like a dream! Humans need to adapt and that will cost money to protect future generations.

a reply to: raymundoko

What is your background in this? Atmospheric science and chemistry to be specific.

4% and rising(1/25th) of the CO2 in the troposphere can be tied directly to us, real numbers yes. That isotope study only accounts for one source of human contribution to the carbon cycle. The 40% increase of CO2 in the troposphere is also a real figure. Volcanic activity has been low in recent years so we can rule that out as a source of CO2.

We have destroyed an enormous amount of rain forest and other lifeforms vital to the carbon cycle. This causes CO2 to have a longer residence time, in other words each CO2 molecule has a predictable amount of time it spends in the atmosphere. Now with more sources(burning fuel) and less sinks(rain forest).

What we do not want to happen is a runaway effect to happen with carbon.

For the record, I do not read any global warming blogs. The only 'blog' I frequent is ATS.

MS Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics. I worked for the DoD studying plasma phenomena specifically with concern for LEO's in mind. We worked at a research station in HI. I finished college and research prior to the media uproar over global warming.

a reply to: jrod