NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

originally posted by: network dude
My take on reading this article, is that some natural factors contribute a good bit to the increase in C02, and this isn't the kind of news you normally see advertised on the MSM. It's against the narrative. And this is the kind of thing that when factored into the models, should help put some sort of percentage man is responsible for adding to the problems. (which is a very valid question in my uninformed opinion)

So to recap, I'm not deying anything, I'm not claiming man has no influence in nature, and I'm not ragging on Al Gore, I'm simply bringing this article to the forum, and offering my opinion that since this is against the "it's all mans fault" narrative, this isn't the kind of article you will find in the MSM.

And while I'm not anywhere near as intelligent as a liberal would be, I do comprehend photosynthesis.

Why do you keep writing "C02" (CO2 wit a 0 instead of an O)? Do you not understand that CO2 = Carbon + Oxygen + Oxygen?

We are what is causing CO2 levels to rise.

originally posted by: Greven
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

originally posted by: Greven
We know about how much CO2 is produced by burning fuel, and about how much we burn each year:
Coal: 0.093303951 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 153,000,000,000 million Btu in 2012 = 14,275,504,503 tonnes of CO2 = ~14 Gt of CO2
Oil: 0.071304721 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 90 million barrels per day * 365 * 5.8 million Btu/barrel = 13,585,688,492 tonnes of CO2 = ~13 Gt CO2
Combined: 27 Gt CO2/yr
There are of course others, but the combined emissions are already in excess of the increase. I don't really feel like looking up the 2011-2012 values, but the change is as I recall lower than 2014-2015.

Eventually the Earth is going to stop soaking up our excess, and then it too will cause CO2 levels to rise.

Sounds like in this article that this is what happened here.

I guess the real question is, is this true.
a reply to: network dude

a reply to: network dude

The headline is misleading.

Maybe NASA is trying to win points with the current administration.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: nwtrucker

I cannot explain it to you better than a scientist can.
But C02 levels on this planet are very fragile, they play a minor role in the way the earths atmosphere allows heat to be trapped in or let out.
But, even massive sudden influxtions in C02 can be easily mitigated and managed by the planet.
To put it into basic terms, and it's why I used my alcohol analogy, is that humans have been sending out a steady flow of C02, while destroying massive amount of ecosystems that would have otherwise just simply absorbed the influx from say multiple volcanoes, and what not over time.
But, that's not the case. Now, imagine an alcoholic going on a binge drinking session every weekend, plus drinking heavily throughout the week. The body has no time to really recover from the binge, it just suffers.

It's the same with C02 emissions, all it takes is the earth to go through a bunch of binge sessions and no time in between to recover because of humans destroying ecosystems, all the while spewing out C02 unnaturally.

Now on top of this, throw in all sorts of other factor, and scenarios. It's not a good sign. So why not work towards letting the planet be able to cope with natural causes on it's own? Ease it's pain from it's human disease of greed for natural resources.

Yet you ignore the replacement systems of CO2 removal via agriculture, irrigation and enhanced crop technologies. You title the thread as if NASA's questionable opinion was THE answer when at best it a possible contributing factor.

I remain unconvinced. Sorry.

originally posted by: havok
a reply to: network dude

Don't fight the narrative!
Tax everyone! That's the solution!
People caused it all!
Tax!
AGW!


/s

It's always reassuring to know that there are those who believe their pocketbook will protect them from anything.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
Right. That's the new paradigm, isn't it? Now that warming is pretty hard to deny. And that rising CO2 concentrations have been so for quite a while.

"Well human activity is doing something to the climate, but we don't know exactly how much."


To answer your question:
> 50%
All things considered.

In all honesty, we are coming out of an ice age, so warming is kind of a given, but the rate is more than some times in the past, so something is happening. And I am not denying man's influence as I used to, but most folks don't put a percentage on it and leave it totally ambiguous. If it's 50%, and we have been trying to make changes, then I have to reiterate my disgust with your previous link. Our changes amount to nothing, it's steadily rising Co2, and doesn't show any hint of changing course. If we had any ability to stop this runaway train, we should see some indication of a downward trend.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

The headline is misleading.

Maybe NASA is trying to win points with the current administration.

Which parts of the article are incorrect?

a reply to: network dude

In all honesty, we are coming out of an ice age, so warming is kind of a given,

Actually, we are and have been in an Ice Age for millions of years. Perhaps you mean glacial period? The one that ended about 10,000 years ago?
upload.wikimedia.org...

If we had any ability to stop this runaway train, we should see some indication of a downward trend.

Stop it? Not anytime soon. Apply the breaks? Absolutely. You think full speed ahead is a good plan?

originally posted by: Phage

Stop it? Not anytime soon. Apply the breaks? Absolutely. You think full speed ahead is a good plan?

Aren't you the one who keeps telling me we are doing things to mitigate this? It's either one, or the other, not both.
And I really hate to ask this of you, but have you ever considered the option that you might be missing some key information about the climate, and things aren't as cut and dried as some would have us think?

a reply to: network dude

Aren't you the one who keeps telling me we are doing things to mitigate this? It's either one, or the other, not both.

We are. By reducing carbon emissions we will apply the brakes. We won't stop the train anytime soon, but we can slow it down. In doing so, we will give ourselves more time to apply the brakes harder still. By slowing the rate of change, we will reduce the impacts of rapid change as well as better understanding and dealing with them. The longer we wait, the faster the train is going, the harder it will be to slow it and the faster the changes will occur. The faster they occur, the stronger the impact.

That's what the Paris agreement is about. Slow the train.

And I really hate to ask this of you, but have you ever considered the option that you might be missing some key information about the climate, and things aren't as cut and dried as some would have us think?

There are a lot of things that are missing. But the basic facts are known. CO2 increases radiative forcing. Increased forcing increases temperatures. Increasing temperatures produce other "feedback" effects (like increased water vapor content, and maybe things like your OP is talking about).

Or is your point that maybe it's not CO2 that's causing the warming? Maybe it's something we're just not aware of. So, again, full speed ahead because maybe it's not CO2?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
Right. That's the new paradigm, isn't it? Now that warming is pretty hard to deny. And that rising CO2 concentrations have been so for quite a while.

"Well human activity is doing something to the climate, but we don't know exactly how much."


To answer your question:
> 50%
All things considered.

New paradigm?
The debate is about AGW, not global warming generally. It's been that way for some time as far as I can tell. Sure, there will be some who will argue that the planet is not warming at all, but the data is far more robust on that to conclude that it is (at least over a relatively short time horizon)

a reply to: UKTruth

New paradigm?
The debate is about AGW, not global warming generally.

You seem to be forgetting about how the temperature data is faked. Remember "climategate?"

But the tack has changed. A short while ago it was "What? Human activity affecting climate? CO2? Preposterous!"

Now it's:

For his own part, Pruitt acknowledged that global warming is occurring, and that “human activity contributes to it in some manner”. But he added: “Measuring with precision, from my perspective, the degree of human contribution is very challenging.”

www.theguardian.com...

The science is closing in on the "best" of them.

a reply to: network dude

Rotting and decaying Reefs.

a reply to: network dude

This is easily explainable. Plants and trees require water, CO2, and sunlight for photosynthesis. According to the article El-Nino caused excessive heat and drought (can be argued that it was worsened by AGW). If the plants and trees don't get water, they can't take CO2 from the air and convert it into energy and oxygen. CO2 then builds up in the air. To make things worse bodies of water that normally trap some CO2 and other gases start to release CO2 when they warm up.

It is indeed accounted for in AGW calculations to a certain extent. You see, AGW models and simulations are not used to prove AGW exists because AGW is already a fact. Simulations and models are only used to understand the effects of AGW, and how severe it will or will not be.

In the simulations, almost all forms of CO2 sinks (things that absorb CO2) are accounted for to a certain extent. That means large bodies of water, plant life, etc. that all take part in the carbon cycle. In fact these CO2 sinks are what contributes to the "runway greenhouse effect" which we can model. The "runaway" is triggered by heat, which causes bodies of water to release trapped CO2, the CO2 traps more heat, and water releases more CO2, ad infinitum and we have a runaway. Plants play a role too... When CO2 increases, the plants reach a threshold, they can only absorb a limited amount of CO2 at a time. This creates more heat, which evaporates water faster and causes droughts, which then causes plants to have trouble absorbing more CO2 because water is required to bind to CO2 and create glucose, and release oxygen.

Its a mess, and this article only proves how crazy AGW will be. NASA knows what the root cause is, but they are reluctant to give specifics because otherwise they wouldn't have something to research and nothing to get funding for.

...and please, I beg you, don't let greedy tax proposals blind you from the reality that AGW is real.

Here we go again with the denials. Here is fact :

Scientists know with 100% certainty that the increasing CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning.

Want to argue? Then first do some research about carbon isotopes. You know the stuff that allows dead organic material to be aged because all living organisms uptake a fixed proportion of isotopes. The fossil fuels are so old they have none. The calculation is not as simple as first glance (i know some folks will leap in there without thinking) due to the imbalance in the ratios due to the burning and the re-absorbtion of ancient CO2 in the cycle. But they can, have and continue to do it.

So they know for 100% we are the cause becasue they can measure how much carbon in the CO2 is sourced from fossil fuels due to the isotope ratios.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Here we go again with the denials. Here is fact :

Scientists know with 100% certainty that the increasing CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning.

Want to argue? Then first do some research about carbon isotopes. You know the stuff that allows dead organic material to be aged because all living organisms uptake a fixed proportion of isotopes. The fossil fuels are so old they have none. The calculation is not as simple as first glance (i know some folks will leap in there without thinking) due to the imbalance in the ratios due to the burning and the re-absorbtion of ancient CO2 in the cycle. But they can, have and continue to do it.

So they know for 100% we are the cause becasue they can measure how much carbon in the CO2 is sourced from fossil fuels due to the isotope ratios.

where are the denials?

a reply to: network dude

Right here?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: 0x6372756d6273
a reply to: network dude

Right here?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ahh, I see the confusion. But I guess it's to be expected from the cult. See, those who have not been "washed in the blood of the Algore", have been watching all this and still have a few questions. I fully realize that it's NOT OK, to ask questions, but I'm not a rule follower, so I apologize.

You may want to take a few classes in how to deal with others who ask questions, I feel like it may continue to happen, and some of us feel like asking questions is how to get answers. It's like debating Phage. You can feel you are right all you want, but if you don't bring facts, you will not get far in the debate.

So in conclusion, a denier would be someone who says things like "that's not real, the Earth is not warming", someone who questions things might say "It's things like that that make me pause a bit when I'm told things like "the science is settled"

a reply to: network dude

It is relatively small increase compared to the trend in the past 100years and left out anthropological reasons that likely enhanced the CO2 burp.

To a lay person, it makes it seem like El Niño is the cause sole cause of the CO2 spike, not human activity.

The reality is in the past 100 years we have released an unprecedented amount of CO2. In the past geological records show it takes nature alone about 5000years or more for the same increase when the has been CO2 spikes.

I just do not understand why so many ignore the very real CO2 problem we are causing.