Worldwide CO2 Concentrations have Surpassed 410 Parts Per Million

a reply to: NorthernLites

Hello, Nick Stokes. Nice to meet you. Or are you a plagiarist?

Nick Stokes says:
November 16, 2013 at 7:33 pm

By correcting for the Mosher-Stokes GHG Amplification Theorem, I’ve discovered that man-made annual atmospheric CO2 contribution is really only 13 GT rather than 33 GT, which comports well with my prior Mann-Trenberth & Jones-Hansen-Schmidt & more advanced Cook-Lewandowsky transform function-derived estimates of volcanic-origin CO2 in the range of 10 to 15,000 GT.

Just kidding, as I hope is obvious.

wattsupwiththat.com...

a reply to: NorthernLites

Volcanoes account for about 200 million tons of CO2 while human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels account for 24 billion tons of CO2.

And you are trying to call me ignorant? Do you not understand 24 billion is much greater than 200 million?

a reply to: jrod

Your data set is primitive, incomplete, do you understand that?

Oh, crap.

Am I supposed to fall over dead now?

Apologies for not doing so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: NorthernLites

Wow.

The USGS is primitive but wattsupwiththat is legit?

That is your claim. Please back up such a claim with evidence, not a one liner that adds nothing to the discussion.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

They keep promising it will get warmer but they are just torturing us, I won't believe it till I feel it.

You're not likely to notice any dramatic change in temperature in your lifetime. But what you might find, if you pay attention, is that there are more warmer days than cooler days, on average for any particular month. But that change represents a lot of heat energy being retained.

Or it may cause just the opposite.

a reply to: network dude

The alarmists will read the article and say it's only the USA that had the coldest April in a couple decades, it's not the entire world so the article is meaningless.
Even if the entire world were to enter a year without summer like 1816, with widespread crop failures and famine that would be associated with a drop in temperature, C02 would still get the blame.
It's a cultlike religion, with fanatics screaming from the rafters ready to challenge any logic or reason put in front of them.
It's their cause, debating online will not win them over, but others watching the threads will see to what depths they will sink to demonize a gas essential for life on earth.
If multidecadal ocean currents have the effect many think they do, we're in for a couple decades of a bit cooler weather.

a reply to: NorthernLites

I don't doubt warming, I just hope that mistakes were made, and things weren't factored in, when the predictions for doom and end of days are offered. (I'm a dick that way) And when I present my optimism, it's usually attacked, so I'm used to it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To be honest, there are so many misleading bits of data on both sides of this, so much so that it's almost impossible to use a source for discussion that won't get attacked from someone. So since my input means exactly jack sh!t here, I choose to provoke a bit. (have to live up to the title)

earth.nullschool.net.../chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-155.73,17.78,553

You will need to add the second portion as link is too long for here

Had to throw this wind / chem etc... map out there .

Under the left tab you can toggle all sorts of things ... under the Chem tab take a look at New york and California .... Then Eastern Russia ... What is going on in eastern Russia. Anyway this is a real cool tool.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

Brace yourself.
www.mlive.com...

Oh great, there goes the neighborhood. I suppose they will move DC here, with all the overboard boisterous politicians and lobbiests. We need to create a wall so these powerful Ad Hominum spewing deceivers can't get here.

See, technically DC is not a state, so DC's residents will be immigrants. WE need that wall.

a reply to: Phage

Doesn't take a genius to figure out we cut down all the trees and burn fossil fuels co2 will rise. It may be time for people to start building scrubbers we have the technology and it would even be economical if we used them to make fuel and create a new co2 cycle. Co2 batteries could replace energy needs.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Phage

Doesn't take a genius to figure out we cut down all the trees and burn fossil fuels co2 will rise. It may be time for people to start building scrubbers we have the technology and it would even be economical if we used them to make fuel and create a new co2 cycle. Co2 batteries could replace energy needs.

Where do you get off making outrageous assertions that we are cutting down all the trees? This is the kind of alarmist statement that makes your side look ridiculous.

Economical scrubbers to make fuel? Called trees, since they are deemed Carbon neutral, they are being cut down en mass to power generating stations.
Europe is destroying it's forests for green power

C02 batteries to replace energy needs? If this is what your religion is preaching, it's no wonder more and more people are discovering that the alarmists position is far from the gospel truth like the globalists and main stream media have portrayed it to be. People are waking up to the reality they have been deceived. The false prophet Al Gore has been exposed. Better to invest in some method to deprogram the last of the remaining fanatics before their heads explode.

a reply to: NorthernLites

I dont have a side but I see you do. Facts are deforestation has become a real problem globally. As far as scrubbers I just look at things scientifically we aren't going to get countries like China to stop emitting CO2 as there economy allows more and more Chinese will buy cars. There usage of fossil fuels will only increase off setting any decreases the US may have.

Bottom line we need to look into ways to use CO2 feom the atmosphere instead of releasing more from the planet.

Now if you chose to delude yourself that there isn't a correlation between CO2 and global tempratures nothing will convince you because facts didnt. Sadly people like you are going to cause us to ignore a problem but why worry you'll be dead and it won't effect you.

originally posted by: dragonridr


Bottom line we need to look into ways to use CO2 feom the atmosphere instead of releasing more from the planet.

Photosynthesis is Mother Natures Carbon capture and it's ramping up. Crop yields have increased all over the planet. Global Greening from the higher C02 levels is a blessing for mankind. Climate changes. Ever heard of the Medieval Warm period that Michael Mann had to work so hard to turn into a regional phenomenon? Or the Little Ice Age? Year without a Summer?

wattsupwiththat.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorthernLites

Yes. That says that the estimates of volcanic emissions has risen. It does not say that volcanic emissions have risen.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years.

The rise in atmospheric concentrations has occurred over years, not generations. The article is attempting to make the point that however much CO2 is being emitted by volcanoes, it's been doing so for a very long time and does not account for the rise in CO2 concentrations which have occurred over the past decades.

That article you quoted is poorly written so you can be excused for misunderstanding it. Here is another article which puts the new estimate in perspective.

While higher than Gerlach's estimate, the figure is still just a fraction of carbon dioxide output from human activities. Gerlach remarked via email, “Taken at face value, their result implies that anthropogenic CO2 exceeds global volcanic CO2 by at least a factor of 60 times.”

www.climate.gov...

The article you referenced was poorly written and confusing so I asked one of my friends at Watts Up to write a clear language edition post on the effects of Vulcanism on the climate. It's just been posted online now, here is the link.

The effect of Volcanoes on Climate and Climate on Volcanoes

The relationship between volcanoes and climate is a very complex one. From reading the media one gets the impression that they are some sort of climatic wild card. They are used to explain the cooling after the Pinatubo eruption, or the Little Ice Age cooling as a detriment to the solar hypothesis. But they are also used to explain the warming leading to mass extinctions in the distant past.

To be able to fulfill such a dual role, scientists take advantage of the different gas emissions from volcanoes. About 50-90 % of the gas emitted by volcanoes is water vapor. The rest is highly variable from one volcano to another, but CO2 can be 1-40 %, SO2 1-25 %, H2S 1-10 %, and HCl 1-10 %, plus a lot of other minor gases. H2S gets quickly oxidized to SO2.

a reply to: NorthernLites

Actually it was much better written than the one you originally quoted. Bottom line is that humans produce far more CO2 than volcanoes do. That is why CO2 levels are rising. Volcanoes had been happily pumping out CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years without changing CO2 levels much. Then came people burning coal and stuff. Suddenly CO2 levels are higher than they've been in at least 800,000 years. Imagine that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...