Very Bad News: Southern Ocean Saturated With CO2

Originally posted by apex

No, it's only 23 times worse than CO2, averaged over 100 years. Though in 20 years it has a potential 63 times that of CO2.

Except that first of all methane levels have been stable for the past 8 years.

Source: University of California - Irvine
Date: November 22, 2006

Level Of Important Greenhouse Gas Has Stopped Growing: Seven-year Stabilization Of Methane May Slow Global Warming

Science Daily — Scientists at UC Irvine have determined that levels of atmospheric methane – an influential greenhouse gas – have stayed nearly flat for the past seven years, which follows a rise that spanned at least two decades.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Second of all, a lot of the methane emissions come from such sources as rice fields, which feed billions of people around the planet.

Major methane emitter identified in Asian rice fields

Catherine Brahic
12 August 2005
Source: SciDev.Net

Researchers have identified a group of soil-dwelling microbes that help make Asian rice-farming one of the world's largest sources of a major greenhouse gas.

www.scidev.net...

Rice not only feeds people in Asia, but in poor South American countries and even in Africa and other countries.

So are we going to starve all these people because some want to lower even more methane levels?...

How do the members who say we have to lower methane levels plan on feeding the billions of people on the planet which relly on rice as a main source of food?

Muaddib, the chart you used for CO2 levels is flat out wrong. It's not from a reputable scientific source, it's from a source that has an agenda to prove. Anyone can put up anything on the internet and call it a science site. Any high school biology teacher will tell you that chart is flat out wrong.

You're good at throwing out the big words and cherry-picking pseudo information to look like you know what you're talking about. Either your research is faulty or you're twisting things around.

My husband, a biologist for 25 years, figures you're probably a disinformation agent. Either way, your conclusions and your "information" is really twisted and bears no resemblance to reality.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by apex

No, it's only 23 times worse than CO2, averaged over 100 years. Though in 20 years it has a potential 63 times that of CO2.

Except that first of all methane levels have been stable for the past 8 years.

Thats not what I said, I stated the actual potency of methane with comparison to CO2 there. I didn't state that the level is rising, if I did, sorry that I did not make it clearer. The problem is that there may be sources of methane which can be set off by a variation in world temperatures. The amount being produced by mankind is currently offset by the amount nature removes.

And I would not prevent feeding the starving to reduce production of methane.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by apex]

Actually, the U.S. Coast Guard recently stated that the ocean's warming has been producing much more methane coming up from the ocean's floor. The overall methane level apparently hasn't risen, but that's a little misleading. As the earth warms, more methane will be released.

Originally posted by forestlady
Muaddib, the chart you used for CO2 levels is flat out wrong. It's not from a reputable scientific source, it's from a source that has an agenda to prove. Anyone can put up anything on the internet and call it a science site. Any high school biology teacher will tell you that chart is flat out wrong.

I am tired of members who can't discuss a topic and because they can't counter an argument with real information they have to resort to claiming "you must be a disinformation agent"... It's really childish and stupid... Some people really need to "grow up"...

That graph comes from two sets of data, one of historic atmospheric CO2 by Drs. R.A. Berner & Z. Kothavala, 2001.

jxb.oxfordjournals.org...

In the graph in the above link the second line under the O2% shows the CO2 that has been on Earth for the past almost 600 million years and shows that the graph I gave comes from real data.

The temperature line from the original graph I gave, is a chart by Dr. Christopher R. Scotese.

Here is the chart.


You can find that chart here.
www.scotese.com...

Here is a link with some information about Dr. Scotese.
www.uta.edu...

Here is a link with some information about Dr. R.A. Berner.
earth.geology.yale.edu...

Here is some information about Dr. Zav Kothavala.
www.mrcc.uqam.ca...

And tell your husband, if he is really a High School science teacher, that he should be doing some more up-to-date research... He is a bit behind in scientific matters.

Drs. Christopher R. Scotese., R.A. Berner & Z. Kothavala are not "High School teachers", but they have PhDs and teach in Universities, so their graphs are more reliable than your husband's or your claims, more so when he is not even aware of this research data.

Originally posted by forestlady
You're good at throwing out the big words and cherry-picking pseudo information to look like you know what you're talking about. Either your research is faulty or you're twisting things around.

My husband, a biologist for 25 years, figures you're probably a disinformation agent. Either way, your conclusions and your "information" is really twisted and bears no resemblance to reality.

No forestlady, I tried discussing this with you in a civil manner yet you and your husband have to resort to childish name calling... If anyone is throwing around pseudo-science is you and your husband. You should be learning how to make a concise argument by presenting data instead of resorting to stupid ad hominem attacks...


[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]

I see Muaddib's doing his dirty work in here...

Robert Berner is one of the foremost researchers in paleoclimate. He's also produced lots of research showing how CO2 is a causal factor in climate, completely at odds with what Muaddib would like to suggest.

Ray doesn't mention my modeling work also misrepresented by William Broad. I have been looking over the past 20 years at factors affecting the carbon cycle during the Phanerozoic. This is summarized in my book The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle (Oxford University Press, 2004) There are very many factors affecting CO2 that are not obvious on a human or even Pleistocene time scale. This includes the feedback of global warming on CO2 uptake by increased silicate rock weathering and CO2-induced increased plant productivity as it also affects CO2 uptake by weathering. The rise of vascular land plants during the Paleozoic undoubtedly had a large effect on CO2 uptake via both increased weathering and the accumulation of carbonaceous debris in rocks. Continental drift affects both continental temperatures and river runoff and crude estimates of such factors has been made via GCM modeling The whole long term carbon cycle and its effect on CO2 should not be ignored and replaced by simplistic assumptions for quick calculations of paleo-CO2. Nevertheless, ten million year averages for the many (over 400) independent proxies fall within my estimated error margins, obtained via sensitivity analysis, which are VERY WIDE. A copy of this data is being sent to Ray personally. I couldn't reproduce it here. Also,the two major extended periods of glaciation (Permo-Carboniferous) and the past 30 million years agree both with modeling and proxy averages. This is crude by modern modelling standards but it is strongly suggestive of a correlation of CO2 with climate. If you don't like any of this, at least look at my book.

Robert Berner
www.realclimate.org...-21079

ABE: 'CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate' (2004) Royer, Berner et al.

The late Ordovician (~440 Ma) represents the only interval during which glacial conditions apparently coexisted with a CO2-rich atmosphere. Critically, though, widespread ice sheets likely lasted

Here is another graph which shows the CO2 levels for the past 500 million years.

The orange line shows Berner and Kothavala 2001 Geocarb III graph, which is the exact same one I gave in the original graph i gave and the last link.

For some reason I can't link to that url.

Here is another link which shows the graph clearer.

www.liquidcoal.com...

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin
I see Muaddib's doing his dirty work in here...

Robert Berner is one of the foremost researchers in paleoclimate. He's also produced lots of research showing how CO2 is a causal factor in climate, completely at odds with what Muaddib would like to suggest.

And again melatonin links to "Real Climate"... The website where Mann and associates are trying to vindicate Mann's data which tried to bury the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and then when the IPCC used Mann's "Hockey Stick Graph" to try to claim that the 20th century has been the warmest for the past 1,000 years, Mann came up with another graph for the past 2,000 years, by which he tried to bury also the end of the Roman Warming period, which other research has shown to have been much warmer than either the Medieval Warming or the present time.

The graphs that i gave exists, and it does shows that CO2 levels have been mostly higher in the past than the present period...

Melatonin...keep linking to the site where Mann is one of the directors...you keep discrediting yourself more and more...

In case it hasn't gotten into that thick skull of yours Mann's data is not only flawed but was obviously rigged...only you would still be linking to a site where Mann and associates try to give credence to the Hockey Stick Graph...

Meanwhile, the IPCC mobilized a large number of climatologists and meteorologists and published several impressive, voluminous publications, one after the other. In one of them, “Climate Change 2001,” for example, a figure that became known as “the hockey stick,” was used prominently in the “Summary for Policy Makers,” in which the temperature shows a dramatic increase during the most recent 100 years, after a slow decrease in temperature over the first 900 years. The nickname “hockey stick” was coined because the temperature-time curve had this sudden, upward kink near the end, like a hockey stick. (Since then, this particular figure has been discredited; the new IPCC Report (2007) does not include the figure.)

www.iarc.uaf.edu...

And the above comes from the International Arctic Research Center, where Dr. Akasofu has been the director in charge of investigating Climate Change for the past 9 years in the Arctic... He is a lot more reliable than Mann and associates or their "Real Climate site".


[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
And again melatonin links to "Real Climate"... The website where Mann and associates...

And the website where real scientists, such as Robert Berner, will make posts showing their work does not support your position.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

And the website were real scientists, such as Robert Berner, will make posts showing their work does not support your position.

"Real scientists" don't try to hide evidence which debunks their claims...

It takes a "Real scientist" to admit he/she was wrong, and Mann and associates have proven they can't do that.

Even if there are 50 million year gaps, on overall the graphs shows CO2 and temperature have not always correlated each other, not to mention the fact that CO2 has always lagged temperature increases, including during the present warming, and the lag has been from 80 years to 800+ years...

During the present warming period temperatures increased and continued increasing beginning in the early 1600s, meanwhile CO2 levels did not increase until 260 years later around the 1860s...and not to mention the fact that even a doubling of CO2 only increases temperatures by a whooping 0.014C.

CO2 is not the "driver" of warming cycles, it is only an effect from temperature changes.

BTW, before melatonin twists around once again what i am saying, I am not saying mankind is not contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, what i am saying is that the geological record has shown that CO2 increases are an effect, and not the cause of warming cycles, or "Global Warming".

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Even if there are 50 million year gaps, on overall the graphs shows CO2 and temperature have not always correlated each other, not to mention the fact that CO2 has always lagged temperature increases, including during the present warming, and the lag has been from 80 years to 800+ years...

The lag is not so important to CO2's causal relationship, we don't expect CO2 to just magically appear in the atmosphere, but to be emitted due to another cause. When emitted, it does what greenhouse gases do, cause warming.

There seems to be one period where the relationship is under scrutiny, the Berner article quote mentions it, and also mentions why the relationship could well hold even during this period. Once in 440 million years is under scrutiny, heh.

and not to mention the fact that even a doubling of CO2 only increases temperatures by a whooping 0.014C.

Why are you still spreading this disinformation?

If we were interested in the climate sensitivity of central USA grasslands, then this figure might be relevant.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by melatonin]

Ok my simple gut instinct 2 cents worth, IT IS THE CATTLE INDUSTRY's FAULT!!! They are cutting down the rainforrests and the Forrests here in America and EVERY WHERE. There is the CO2 problem, and with all of BILLIONS OF COWS POOPING we have a METHANE PROBLEM!!!! Earth was not designed to accomodate all of the forrests being cut down, and earth was not meant to have billions of cows pooping all over the fields. Now this does not even begin to mention the rest of the live stock like chicken and pigs and buffalo and you name it that people raise to eat that POOP. And where does all this settle? Well the earth is 96% WATER.... DUH

Originally posted by melatonin

The lag is not so important to CO2's causal relationship, we don't expect CO2 to just magically appear in the atmosphere, but to be emitted due to another cause. When emitted, it does what greenhouse gases do, cause warming.

The lag is very important, as it shows CO2 during Climate Changes is an effect of changing temperatures, hence mankind "adding a small amount" of the 0.01% of CO2 for the past 150-200 years is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

Originally posted by melatonin
Why are you still spreading this disinformation?

If we were interested in the climate sensitivity of central USA grasslands, then this figure might be relevant.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by melatonin]

Why are you trying to dismiss it? Why are you trying to spread more of your disinformation?....

If there was any truth that CO2 causes "great warming", it would show so whether the experiments were made using only a modelling for a localized area...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The lag is very important, as it shows CO2 during Climate Changes is an effect of changing temperatures, hence mankind "adding a small amount" of the 0.01% of CO2 for the past 150-200 years is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

Logical fallacy and we have actually added about 30% more CO2.

Why are you trying to dismiss it? Why are you trying to spread more of your disinformation?....

I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying it is relevant for changes in central USA grasslands. If the whole world was a central USA grassland, it might be important - you may have missed this groundbreaking finding, but it's not.

The issue is that climate sensitivity (i.e. doubling CO2) is 2-4.5'C, thus your attempt to use this 0.014'C figure is an attempt to mislead and obfuscate.