CO2 buildup accelerating in atmosphere

And do you think if your body contained .034% Plutonium it would be OK. Absolutely NOT you would be stone dead.

Yet another example of bad science spewed by the pro camp.

The example isn't even in the solar system, buddy.

CO2 is a gas required for life. Its concentrations are very small. It has been much higher in the past will no ill effects. It's all scaremongering.

In 20 years time, I'll be laughing at all this.

OK... assume it is 4° warmer. Right now it is +19°C outside. Make that +23°C. It is just past 1500 hrs local. It's the middle of summer. +19°C is all it can manage??

+23°C is nothing to worry about. Life goes on, plants still grow, food still grows, we're still dependent upon the Middle East for oil.

The stress of global warming will kill you. Even a 4°C temperature rise won't achieve that.

So the ice at the pole melts? Sea levels might rise as much as they claim, but again, what's the real problem? LAND FLOODS. PEOPLE ARE DISPLACED. That is all.

It's not the doom that everyone is saying it is. It's BS.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by malcr
I do not believe you just likened CO2 to Plutonium. I have heard some pretty ignorant things on here, but this ranks right up there with the guy who declared CO2 a carcinogen because it is contained in cigarette smoke.

What's next, explosive CO2? Or maybe it is the cause of AIDS? Sheesh, guys, get a grip.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The reason for the faster buildup of the most important "greenhouse gas" will require further analysis, the U.S. government experts say.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

which is a bit different from where you insinuations where going.

My insinuation is simply that the CO2 level is being reported to be increasing atop an active volcano, yet most of the article explains how humans are supposedly producing more CO2 than the atmosphere can handle. Not once is the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano mentioned, nor the possibility that it might be leaking CO2. Now there's you a nice little dose of insinuation.

CO2 level is increasing at all stations. Humans are producing a billions of tonnes of CO2 which is causing the yearly increases.

The interest and the finding that required 'further analysis' was why the rate of increase was higher for a time. However, I think it was obvious that your take was a little bit 'different'.

Again, for effect:

If, as is insinuated in the article, the CO2 level is the same phenomena that is being touted by those of Al Gore's ilk, then we would expect a population center to be located close to the observatory. Any quick search on the demographics of Hawaii will show immediately that the population is centered closer to Oahu, the island which is home to Honolulu. The population on the big island of Hawaii, where Mauna Loa and the observatory is located, is very low. This would further suggest that any atmospheric buildup of CO2 observed is coming from a source other than people.

The answer, the only reasonable answer, is that this is simply a CO2 leak from within the volcano. It hs nothing to do with Kyoto, fossil fuels, or human population. It has everything to do with natural forces within the earth.

'Any atmospheric build-up'?

That's crazy. The increases in CO2 found at Mauna Loa are readily verified by numerous other stations. You are conveying a rather fundamental misunderstanding here. And the 'same phenomena being touted by Gore and his ilk' part rather solidifies your angle here.

I think the phenomena being touted is the long-term effect of human-sourced CO2 increases.

No, not in this case. this concerns the measurement form one particular station. Again, I quote the article:

Yeah, I know. The data is from Mauna Loa. The data from elsewhere is very, very similar. The main thrust of the article was the interest in why the rate of increase was found to be higher for the short period preceding the report. The rate went back to a more 'normal' rate of increase not long after.

I believe that was pretty clear. this is an observation at one station.

Yeah, Mauna Loa. The station that because you think is far from human populations must be measuring volcanic gases, rather than increases from human activity. Even though stations all over the place are showing the same trends.

If we know where the CO2 is coming from, then why are the 'experts' stating "The reason for the faster buildup of the most important "greenhouse gas" will require further analysis", as I posted above from the article?

Because we are releasing twice the amount of CO2 required into the atmosphere, it is not very difficult to understand the cause of the CO2 increases. So, some easy major explanations of this change in rate - we were releasing more CO2, the biosphere was, or the CO2 being released was being less absorbed by the biosphere.

The further analysis is related to why the rate increased. The effeciency of biospheric carbon sinks is also of considerable interest. Thus, perhaps the rate increase was due to intermittent falls in the ability of sinks to absorb CO2. If this became permanent it would be bad news, worse than us releasing CO2 at higher rates - as we will probably do this anyway in time, being all myopic and that. But once the sinks reduce absorption?

And I guess you could say it 'magically' disappears, if you agree with the axiom that "any advanced technology is indistinguishable form magic". Since we still do not know the full mechanics of photosynthesis, it is an obviously advanced technology. We do, however, know that all green plant life absorbs CO2 and emits O2 in the process of growth, aided by solar radiation. We also know that heat and higher CO2 levels directly increase the growth rate of flora, thereby removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In other words, it is a self-correcting mechanism.

Not obviously 'advanced technology' at all. 'Complex biological process' would perhaps be a better term.

Anyway, yeah. Yet CO2 levels are increasing and have been for quite a while. I'm glad you have faith in the ability of nature to ensure humans are comfortable. If the species alive during the PETM had the same ability to hold this faith, I guess they would have got a shock.

Took tens of thousands of years during the PETM for the 'self-correcting' mechanism to get back to baseline.

Wow, we actually agree on a point, melatonin. I am impressed. I must state however, that the drop back to normal levels also indicates some sort of CO2 release other than industry... and it also indicates as well that this was a localized phenomena, not a measure of "well-mixed gases".

No, it really doesn't. CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. It is absorbed by the biosphere. Alterations in either would influence the CO2 level.

However, we are still releasing twice the amount of CO2 required to account for the yearly increases. The biosphere is removing the remainder - your little green friends and the oceans. Indeed, the oceans are the largest sink, but as they get warmer...

So an article obviously enthralled with the notion that the rising CO2 levels are man-made (based on the amount of the story that covered that topic) missed a similar rise at other observatories around the globe? That is either a major blunder on the part of the editors, or it simply isn't true. I will admit it could be the former... but I personally doubt it.

Nah, Mauna Loa is like the superstar of atmospheric stations, it always gets the attention. Just the way it is.

That the overall rising CO2 levels are human-sourced is barely questionable. The short-term change in rate is harder to explain - hence why the were cautious in doing so. They were aked to explain why in one year there was a step of 3ppm, from 376 to 379ppm. That was higher than the long-term trend of around 1.5ppm to 2ppm. They gave some cautious explanations. That was a few years back. It's old news.

Now we up above 384ppm. If you read the entry at Tamino's blog, you would see that the rate of increase is increasing.

This article, closely examined, shows how obviously some proponents will argue for catastrophic man-made Global Warming due to CO2 emissions from industry, even when a more logical reason for an abnormality is right under their nose (or their observatory).

I agreed with much of the rest, but not this. I don't think your reasoning thus far has really been expressing flawless logic.

Human CO2 emissions are without doubt the cause of the long-term CO2 increases. As to the short-term change in rate - could be numerous reasons - they provided some, but expressed caution. Which is cool. Such short-term variations are always going to be difficult to interpret.

But CO2 is increasing, the rate of increase is increasing, and with us releasing more CO2 than is required to explain it? Well...you'd have to be wacky to think this is something other than human caused.

You'd have to think that all the CO2 we release just magically disappears, and that some other phenomena is at work. Indeed, it only started to work during the same period we started to burn all this carbon locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by malcr
I do not believe you just likened CO2 to Plutonium.

I think he was more pointing out the silliness of arguing from small numbers.

"OMG, CO2 CONCENTRATION IS REALLY REALLY SMALL!!!!

Therefore it can't be a problem."

Rather silly. But I don't expect much better from that dude.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by freeusfromthematrix


I wish people concerned about co2 would put that same amount of energy into stopping the wars coming up that will fill the atmosphere with radiation from nuclear bombs going off.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by freeusfromthematrix

 

I wish people concerned about co2 would put that same amount of energy into stopping the wars coming up that will fill the atmosphere with radiation from nuclear bombs going off.

YES! finially someone else who feels the way i do! Nukes are so much more a danger to our well being AND the planets! thank you thank you thank you!

reply to post by jmdewey60



Nukes aren't the problem its the power hungry nut cases that have their fingers on the triggers.

The CO2 hoax is just another aspect of the real problem.

reply to post by melatonin

CO2 level is increasing at all stations. Humans are producing a billions of tonnes of CO2 which is causing the yearly increases.

The interest and the finding that required 'further analysis' was why the rate of increase was higher for a time. However, I think it was obvious that your take was a little bit 'different'.

Yes, melatonin, CO2 levels are increasing at all stations. There is no debate over that; it is empirical. You seem to be adamant about arguing something that is factual.

Yes, melatonin, humans produce billions of tons of CO2 every year. That is also fact. It comes from more than fossil fuels, though. It also comes form breathing. Animals produce CO2 as well, by breathing. Volcanoes produce CO2. Every instance where carbon, the building block of life itself, combines with an excess of oxygen (which is also plentiful on earth, making up 22% of our atmosphere) produces carbon dioxide.

'Any atmospheric build-up'?

That's crazy. The increases in CO2 found at Mauna Loa are readily verified by numerous other stations. You are conveying a rather fundamental misunderstanding here. And the 'same phenomena being touted by Gore and his ilk' part rather solidifies your angle here.

I think the phenomena being touted is the long-term effect of human-sourced CO2 increases.

OK, poor choice of words. How about 'any excessive atmospheric build-up'?

I have referred to one article in this entire thread, the one which stated that there was an abnormal increase at one observatory, and which then went on to discuss, at length, how dangerous such a buildup of this naturally-occurring gas is and how humans are responsible for it, while completely ignoring the fact that huge amounts can come from volcanoes, which the observatory in question is sitting atop of.

This is sensationalized reporting at its finest. If the article were truthful, it would have reported that there are multiple possibilities for the readings other than the human burning of organic material which was not taking place in the vicinity of the observatory.

Yeah, I know. The data is from Mauna Loa. The data from elsewhere is very, very similar. The main thrust of the article was the interest in why the rate of increase was found to be higher for the short period preceding the report. The rate went back to a more 'normal' rate of increase not long after.

...

Yeah, Mauna Loa. The station that because you think is far from human populations must be measuring volcanic gases, rather than increases from human activity. Even though stations all over the place are showing the same trends.

The data from elsewhere did not show a doubled increase during that time period. The data from elsewhere shows the same general rise as has been observed for a few years now.

Because we are releasing twice the amount of CO2 required into the atmosphere, it is not very difficult to understand the cause of the CO2 increases. So, some easy major explanations of this change in rate - we were releasing more CO2, the biosphere was, or the CO2 being released was being less absorbed by the biosphere.

The further analysis is related to why the rate increased. The effeciency of biospheric carbon sinks is also of considerable interest. Thus, perhaps the rate increase was due to intermittent falls in the ability of sinks to absorb CO2. If this became permanent it would be bad news, worse than us releasing CO2 at higher rates - as we will probably do this anyway in time, being all myopic and that. But once the sinks reduce absorption?

Firstly, since when are we 'required' to release a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere? This type of thinking is the problem. There are more than just one 'self-correcting mechanisms' at work in our atmosphere. There is of course, the plant life, which absorbs CO2 and emits oxygen. As CO2 levels rise, plant growth increases. As average temperature rises, plant growth accelerates. As plant growth accelerates, CO2 absorption increases. As CO2 absorption increases, the CO2 level in the atmosphere decreases.

Not every such system works to our concept of how fast an event should occur. For photosynthetic absorption to have an effect can take some time. The process, however, has another effect on the global temperatures, using respiration through leaves (an effect of the photosynthetic process) to also cool the atmosphere through evaporation. As heat increases, the atmosphere itself increases its ability to hold water vapor, also increasing the potential for evaporational cooling. This also would negate some concern over the predicted rise in ocean levels, since oceans can evaporate as well.

Yet, all that was reported in the article was the potential for CO2-induced disaster, I suppose, should all of these systems fail.

Not obviously 'advanced technology' at all. 'Complex biological process' would perhaps be a better term.

Now you're just splitting hairs.

Anyway, yeah. Yet CO2 levels are increasing and have been for quite a while. I'm glad you have faith in the ability of nature to ensure humans are comfortable. If the species alive during the PETM had the same ability to hold this faith, I guess they would have got a shock.

Took tens of thousands of years during the PETM for the 'self-correcting' mechanism to get back to baseline.

I'm not sure what 'PETM' stands for, but I think I get your context. What I don't get is your statement that human life could not have existed at some time in history, due to CO2 levels. Firstly, what could have possibly caused high CO2 levels if humans weren't around to burn fossil fuels? And secondly, how exactly did life survive if humans (which are alive, using the same biological processes animals have always used) couldn't have survived?

CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. It is absorbed by the biosphere. Alterations in either would influence the CO2 level.

Would a sudden release of trapped CO2 not affect the atmospheric levels? Or does CO2 somehow disappear unless created by fossil fuel use? There is only one type of CO2. If it is released by any means, man-made, volcanic, from wildfires, from respiration, from lightning (yes, that releases some CO2 as well), or whatever, it increases the atmospheric concentration at the source initially, then dissipates slowly throughout the atmosphere.

However, we are still releasing twice the amount of CO2 required to account for the yearly increases. The biosphere is removing the remainder - your little green friends and the oceans. Indeed, the oceans are the largest sink, but as they get warmer...

... the carbonic acid in the water reverts to atmospheric CO2. Yes, I know. Heat tends to make the carbonic ion less stable, in the equation HCO3- --> CO2 + OH-. The question is how fast this operates. The temperature aropund the globe is reported to have risen about one degree over the course of Global Warming. One degree has a very minor effect on carbonic ion stability. I would hazard to state here, without the benefit of actual calculations, that the amount of CO2 absorbed from seawater by a heat/CO2-induced rise in oceanic flora growth increase would more than offset any temperature-related oceanic CO2 release.

Nah, Mauna Loa is like the superstar of atmospheric stations, it always gets the attention. Just the way it is.

Exactly my problem with this report. I don't think the operations of global CO2 emissions/sinks are more enamored with this one area than anywhere else. That requires humans. And it is these humans who want to somehow control our atmospheric CO2 levels?

That the overall rising CO2 levels are human-sourced is barely questionable. The short-term change in rate is harder to explain - hence why the were cautious in doing so. They were aked to explain why in one year there was a step of 3ppm, from 376 to 379ppm. That was higher than the long-term trend of around 1.5ppm to 2ppm. They gave some cautious explanations. That was a few years back. It's old news.

Not hard at all. They are sitting atop a volcano. Why are you having trouble with this concept?

And the article was not at any loss to explain it. It, according to the article, was a direct result of someone burning fossil fuels, which is going to create a catastrophe across the globe and render life extinct.

Now we up above 384ppm. If you read the entry at Tamino's blog, you would see that the rate of increase is increasing.

I read it. It's a blog, although admittedly, he has done some detailed work in it.

--continued--

reply to post by melatonin continued

Human CO2 emissions are without doubt the cause of the long-term CO2 increases. As to the short-term change in rate - could be numerous reasons - they provided some, but expressed caution. Which is cool. Such short-term variations are always going to be difficult to interpret.

But CO2 is increasing, the rate of increase is increasing, and with us releasing more CO2 than is required to explain it? Well...you'd have to be wacky to think this is something other than human caused.

You'd have to think that all the CO2 we release just magically disappears, and that some other phenomena is at work. Indeed, it only started to work during the same period we started to burn all this carbon locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.

variations are not always so difficult to interpret if one looks at all the variables in the equation. They become difficult when these variables are ignored. Of course, ignoring what is below your feet is probably necessary when the results are to show a particular result.

I won't deny the possibility that fossil-fuel emissions are responsible for an unknown amount of the atmospheric CO2 levels we are experiencing today. I will deny that these levels are drastically catastrophic or that they will not reverse the present trend if left alone to do so. Now if you want to talk about the dangers of large-scale deforestation in the context of rising CO2 levels, I doubt we would disagree.

I will also deny sensationalized editorial distractions disguised as news.

I think he was more pointing out the silliness of arguing from small numbers.

"OMG, CO2 CONCENTRATION IS REALLY REALLY SMALL!!!!

Therefore it can't be a problem."

Rather silly. But I don't expect much better from that dude.

Yes, it is silly. Arsenic is a deadly poison, but I wonder how many people have arsenic in their bodies right now? We all probably do, just in small enough amounts to make it insignificant.

Water is essential for life. Yet 3300+ people died in 2005 from drowning (an excess of water).

The question is not about chemicals, but about concentration of chemicals. Different chemicals have different effects, and different acceptable concentrations. This relating of CO2, which is inert, to plutonium, which is radioactive, is a tactic being tried by quite a few of the Global Warming doom-sayers. Therefore I will point out the flaws in those arguments whenever I get the opportunity.

This also goes to the heart of the matter for me. I have no problem with science. I see no harm in studying effects of CO2 levels. I simply demand that this be done with a scientific bent rather than a political agenda. A truly scientific approach would have been, in this case, to inspect the volcano for any release of CO2 which would have been contributing. If no such venting was found, then other possibilities could be considered. Instead, a report was issued immediately without any investigation into the obvious and editorialized to further a political agenda.

That, my friend, is spin. It is not science.

TheRedneck

CO2 is not an issue. CO2 can rise up, and because it's hot, continue rising until it hits the ice cold upper atmosphere, then fall down and get into the ground, wind, bacteria, trees, weeds, etc, etc.

Open your freaking eyes. It's the complex man made gases, not silly old CO2.

The Earth went through 500 million years of cow-like dinosaurs ranging the Earth releasing methane none stop. You think modern cows are a big issue? Imagine those multi-ton beasts in the masses covering every continent. I don't recall any irregular weather back then except the occasional hot and cold pattern as usual.

pff, no thanks Gorrey old "pal", old "friend".

Heh, redneck. I'll try to point it out again. The measurements from Mauna Loa take into account the fact it lies near a volcano.

Measurements are made when there is little chance of contamination, and they have always been done like this. Do you think Keeling didn't know it was a volcanic area?

It is placed high above the thermal layer, measurements are taken when the winds are coming off the ocean. Indeed, there are many days when measurments are not entered into the record due to chance of contamination. The measurements from Mauna Loa are entirely comparable to all the other stations, and would be cross referenced.

I have referred to one article in this entire thread, the one which stated that there was an abnormal increase at one observatory, and which then went on to discuss, at length, how dangerous such a buildup of this naturally-occurring gas is and how humans are responsible for it, while completely ignoring the fact that huge amounts can come from volcanoes, which the observatory in question is sitting atop of.

This is sensationalized reporting at its finest. If the article were truthful, it would have reported that there are multiple possibilities for the readings other than the human burning of organic material which was not taking place in the vicinity of the observatory.

If you want to complain about reporting of science, then, cool. I agree it tends to be pretty naff. But you are going well-beyond that here. The scientists in the report were cautious in interpreting it, and so they should have been.

The volcanic issue is just a big stinky red-herring, but you just keep wafting it around. And again you bring out the blah about burning stuff near the observatory - this is not what they would even want to measure. The amount of CO2 from volcanoes is negligible compared to our yearly emissions.

CO2 is building up, if it continues to do so it will have profound effects on climate, and the CO2 increase is without doubt predominately a result of human activity. The volcano stuff is just obfuscation. 650,000 years. CO2 levels have never been this high. Volcanoes have been around for a while, humans burning carbon ain't.

Oh my...

The PETM was a period of profound climate change (ca. 6'C) that was associated with billions of tonnes of carbon being released into the atmosphere, leading to large changes in the biosphere and extinctions. We could do that, we have enough carbon to burn.

What I don't get is your statement that human life could not have existed at some time in history, due to CO2 levels. Firstly, what could have possibly caused high CO2 levels if humans weren't around to burn fossil fuels? And secondly, how exactly did life survive if humans (which are alive, using the same biological processes animals have always used) couldn't have survived?

Eh?

I never said that humans couldn't have existed due to high CO2 levels. They just never existed during the PETM (Permian-Eocene Thermal maximum; 50 odd million years ago). Although the extinctions that resulted from the PETM event did aid the evolution of mammals, made lots of room and opportunities for new species.

One hypothesis for the PETM event is that some event caused an initial warming, this resulted in the clathrate gun going 'bang', and methane being released slowly over a few thousand years, resulting in CO2 and methane ramping temps up to around 4-6'C higher.

Warm the oceans enough, and we could go 'bang' again. Hopefully, these ocean flora you put your faith in can perform faster miracles this time, it all took a while during the PETM (30,000-150,000 years).

I would hazard to state here, without the benefit of actual calculations, that the amount of CO2 absorbed from seawater by a heat/CO2-induced rise in oceanic flora growth increase would more than offset any temperature-related oceanic CO2 release.

What about the CO2 the ocean would no longer absorb from our emissions? It could release what it had absorbed, and also no longer absorb the 50%ish it is at the moment...

So, without any real analysis you apply the same thinking from terrestrial plants saving the day, to oceanic flora saving the day. Heh, lets hope they can also handle the pH changes and potential changes to the ecosystem, just don't expect any help from the benthic foraminfera - they didn't like the PETM event. The understanding of what will happen to ocean ecosystems is pretty poor (increase temps, lower pH).

Perhaps you should pray. I'll think. Considering it will all be a big risky experiment, we could do with the help.

This relating of CO2, which is inert, to plutonium, which is radioactive, is a tactic being tried by quite a few of the Global Warming doom-sayers. Therefore I will point out the flaws in those arguments whenever I get the opportunity.

Heh, 'Look CO2 is really really small, it's a really really small number, plants EAT it! Therefore we can ignore it'. That is complete tripe.

The analogy depends on the fact that CO2 is not 'inert' in the sense that we are talking about a gas that is a GHG in the context of climate change. It is a component that is important, and even at 380ppm can account for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect of this planet.

This gas in the really small percentage it is provides 9-26% of the radiative effect that ensures we don't freeze. Double it, and it will make the planet warmer. That's basic well-understood physics.

I read it. It's a blog, although admittedly, he has done some detailed work in it

Might be due to him being a statistician specialising in time-series data analysis.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by melatonin]

Well I'm not so sure if doubling .03% to .06% will raise the climate that much hotter, let alone global.

It may have local effects, but global? i don't think so. Look at the ozone. It only makes holes in local areas or at the poles. It's global damage is far lower. Similarly, CO2 will warm the planet by maybe a few fractions of a degree, but a lot in local areas. That's why when I live in New York City, the snow isn't "white" and it doesn't snow that much, but the second I'm out of the city by a few miles, snow is suddenly increased in its amount and it is white, mainly being pollution free.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Gorman91]

CO2 insanity, stop and think people..........err carbon and oxygen that make CO2 are in the same quantities as when the planet formed........except that added by comets, etc..........

Man does not "make" CO2, we just shovel it around...............

PS 99.99% of the atmosphere IS NOT CO2.................

reply to post by melatonin

Heh, redneck. I'll try to point it out again. The measurements from Mauna Loa take into account the fact it lies near a volcano.

Thank you for your patience. My next question is, if the volcanic emissions are taken into account, why is this not mentioned in the article, nor can I find any data from the volcano emissions themselves?

It is placed high above the thermal layer, measurements are taken when the winds are coming off the ocean. Indeed, there are many days when measurments are not entered into the record due to chance of contamination. The measurements from Mauna Loa are entirely comparable to all the other stations, and would be cross referenced.

They are comparable to other stations, except during this one event, which we know from your post was temporary. We both agree to this point, except for the single article which indicates an abnormally high reading compared with other stations. Prevailing winds would serve to give a more accurate reading if they are coming from well-mixed areas, but apparently, in this one case, they were not. The same with height. CO2 is heavier than air and therefore tends to settle in the lower levels of the atmosphere, but if it were heated, the difference in density is slight enough to be overcome by temperature changes. Thusly, it could rise.

This is supposition to show the possibilities that this one incident could be attributable to. I am not suggesting that CO2 levels are not increasing.

If you want to complain about reporting of science, then, cool. I agree it tends to be pretty naff. But you are going well-beyond that here. The scientists in the report were cautious in interpreting it, and so they should have been.

That is exactly what I am complaining about in this thread. This one article, and the obvious bias it is showing. Not once have I said the readings were false, or that CO2 levels are not rising. I simply disagree with the obviously biased reporting of this event, as apparently you do. So why the debate, if we agree that the article was biased?

The volcanic issue is just a big stinky red-herring, but you just keep wafting it around. And again you bring out the blah about burning stuff near the observatory - this is not what they would even want to measure. The amount of CO2 from volcanoes is negligible compared to our yearly emissions.

In reference to the single observation that CO2 levels rose unexpectedly at this one observatory, I expressed reasons why the data might have been contaminated. the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano just seemed to be the most obvious possible cause.

You do believe in review of scientific reports, correct? even if those reviews indicate a possibility that the results might not be in line with the initial reports?

CO2 is building up, if it continues to do so it will have profound effects on climate, and the CO2 increase is without doubt predominately a result of human activity. The volcano stuff is just obfuscation. 650,000 years. CO2 levels have never been this high. Volcanoes have been around for a while, humans burning carbon ain't.

According to ice core data from an Antarctic drill, you are right that CO2 levels are high. I am referencing this graph: www.daviesand.com...
It shows several events during which CO2 levels were approximately as high as present levels. If you will look at the extreme right side (present), you will see that the temperature takes a sudden rise (shown in red). I am curious as to why the CO2 levels did not show that same rise, since they are obviously higher in the atmosphere than the numerical representation at that point, but I will attribute that to a problem with scale.

The problem is that CO2 levels are approximately as high as the peaks during the period of time the ice cores represent. That does not indicate a catastrophe, but it does indicate a historic maximum.

I never said that humans couldn't have existed due to high CO2 levels. They just never existed during the PETM (Permian-Eocene Thermal maximum; 50 odd million years ago). Although the extinctions that resulted from the PETM event did aid the evolution of mammals, made lots of room and opportunities for new species.

Thank you for the explanation. We all use acronyms from time to time, and while I usually get most of them, sometimes I do not.

Your post did implicate that life would have a very hard time surviving. But you are right; there were no humans there.

One hypothesis for the PETM event is that some event caused an initial warming, this resulted in the clathrate gun going 'bang', and methane being released slowly over a few thousand years, resulting in CO2 and methane ramping temps up to around 4-6'C higher.

On initial consideration, this sounds plausible.

Warm the oceans enough, and we could go 'bang' again. Hopefully, these ocean flora you put your faith in can perform faster miracles this time, it all took a while during the PETM (30,000-150,000 years).

This takes a bit more of a stretch. The warming we are experiencing is on the order of a degree or two. This is not a massive temperature swing; it is a slow increase, and one that appears (from NOAA) to be decelerating.

What about the CO2 the ocean would no longer absorb from our emissions? It could release what it had absorbed, and also no longer absorb the 50%ish it is at the moment...

The only way the ocean could stop absorbing CO2 is for the water to become saturated with carbonic acid. This can only happen if the flora in it stopped using the CO2. Remember that heat increases the rate of photosynthesis, and therefore increases the rate of CO2 removal from the water. As CO2 is removed from the carbonic ions, more hydroxide (byproduct of that reaction) is available to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The ability to hold CO2 in storage for future use would be curtailed by a tiny amount, yes, due to the increased thermal activity of the hydroxide/carbonate ions, but the use of CO2 by oceanic flora would increase at a much higher rate.

So, without any real analysis you apply the same thinking from terrestrial plants saving the day, to oceanic flora saving the day. Heh, lets hope they can also handle the pH changes and potential changes to the ecosystem, just don't expect any help from the benthic foraminfera - they didn't like the PETM event. The understanding of what will happen to ocean ecosystems is pretty poor (increase temps, lower pH).

The analysis is from years ago, on a related experiment. What I said (or maybe meant to say?) was, without any calculation. There is a difference.

The pH level due to even a 10C temperature change would be well within the ability of oceanic flora to handle. Oceanic temperatures cover a huge range right now, from 80F+ waters in the Gulf of Mexico, to below-freezing temperatures near the Arctic and Antarctic. Life, both flora and fauna, exist in these waters, all along a temperature range of 80+F. Somehow, worrying about a 1-2 degree change in temperature just doesn't strike me as logical.

Perhaps you should pray. I'll think. Considering it will all be a big risky experiment, we could do with the help.

I'll make an even better deal. How about we both help the other out. I'll think some as well as pray, and you pray some as well as think.

I like prayer, but I like thinking too. People can do both, you know.

Heh, 'Look CO2 is really really small, it's really really small number, plants EAT it! Therefore we can ignore it'. It's complete tripe.

Plants eating CO2 is not completely accurate; it's more of an absorption process. But that's not your point.

The notion that a substance exists in small amounts is relative to the properties of that substance. CO2 is inert to most substances; plutonium is radioactive by itself. The two simply cannot be compared in the context we are discussing.

If you want to state that even small amounts of CO2 are notable, that is one thing. But to state that there is nothing unscientific about comparing concentrations of CO2 and plutonium is simply untrue.

The analogy depends on the fact that CO2 is not 'inert' in the sense that we are talking about a gas that is a GHG in the context of climate change. It is a component that is important, and even at 380ppm can account for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect of this planet.

This gas in the really small percentage it is provides 9-26% of the radiative effect that ensures we don't freeze. Double it, and it will make the planet warmer. That's basic well-understood physics.

Warmer, probably. The debate is how much warmer. There are many aspects of the biosphere that are not well-understood today.

If I pee in the water, it will introduce uric acid into the climate of that water. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the biology of that water will be changed, and could be changed enough to prohibit life from existing. But whether or not it will do so depends on many factors other than whether or not I peed in the water. It will also depend on the size of that water, the temperature of the water, the types of life existing in that water, their abundance, their ability to break down urea, and so on.

If we introduce CO2 into the atmosphere, we just raised the CO2 level. That does not mean the temperature will rise. It depends on the mechanisms to offset the CO2 level, the present temperature and composition of the atmosphere, and any side effects it may have on the biosphere in general.

Might be due to him being a statistician specialising in time-series data analysis.

Might be. He did put some thought and work into it.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Thank you for your patience. My next question is, if the volcanic emissions are taken into account, why is this not mentioned in the article, nor can I find any data from the volcano emissions themselves?

You have some now. But I would have thought it was all rather obvious.

They are comparable to other stations, except during this one event, which we know from your post was temporary. We both agree to this point, except for the single article which indicates an abnormally high reading compared with other stations. Prevailing winds would serve to give a more accurate reading if they are coming from well-mixed areas, but apparently, in this one case, they were not.

Well, it is well-mixed, but there are still variations according to location. Hence if you compare Mauna Loa to South Pole, you get a big seasonal variation at Mauna not present at the Pole.

This is supposition to show the possibilities that this one incident could be attributable to. I am not suggesting that CO2 levels are not increasing.

I know. But you did go beyond that a tad, and the whole thread does.

That is exactly what I am complaining about in this thread. This one article, and the obvious bias it is showing. Not once have I said the readings were false, or that CO2 levels are not rising. I simply disagree with the obviously biased reporting of this event, as apparently you do. So why the debate, if we agree that the article was biased?

I don't know if it was biased. Just another pretty naff report of science.

Mauna Loa shows an increase in CO2 increase for a small period of measurement. True. Some reporter asks a scientist why. He gives cautious and speculative, but plausible, interpretation. Then the article discusses the issue of climate change and CO2.

The only issue is that any interpretation has to be very cautious/speculative with such a small period. And not surprisingly, the rate of increase fell. However, it is true that the rate of CO2 increase is increasing, and has been since modern measurments began.

In reference to the single observation that CO2 levels rose unexpectedly at this one observatory, I expressed reasons why the data might have been contaminated. the fact that Mauna Loa is an active volcano just seemed to be the most obvious possible cause.

I suppose it would be if they were measuring the CO2 levels in a uncontrolled ways. It was more likely a small scale variation related to carbon sinks and seasonal effects.

You do believe in review of scientific reports, correct? even if those reviews indicate a possibility that the results might not be in line with the initial reports?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I accept that all data is less than perfect, and all findings are tentative and open to change with new evidence.

According to ice core data from an Antarctic drill, you are right that CO2 levels are high. I am referencing this graph: www.daviesand.com...
It shows several events during which CO2 levels were approximately as high as present levels. If you will look at the extreme right side (present), you will see that the temperature takes a sudden rise (shown in red). I am curious as to why the CO2 levels did not show that same rise, since they are obviously higher in the atmosphere than the numerical representation at that point, but I will attribute that to a problem with scale.

It actually shows that CO2 never rises much above 300ppm for over 400,000 years (i.e., red is CO2). Through numerous ice-age cycles, all those volcanoes going boom etc, not once.

Your post did implicate that life would have a very hard time surviving. But you are right; there were no humans there.

I think humans could easily survive at 1000ppm. In some way. But really society needs a degree of stability. Rapid changes in climate, with the resultant changes in agriculture, ecosytems etc etc ain't ideal for a fairly settled society.

This takes a bit more of a stretch. The warming we are experiencing is on the order of a degree or two. This is not a massive temperature swing; it is a slow increase, and one that appears (from NOAA) to be decelerating.

Heh, we are only 100ppm into the increase. Give us time. We have enough carbon to burn, and we are emitting it at rates comparable to the PETM. In fact, I think we are going faster (I'd have to check the numbers again to be really sure).

The only way the ocean could stop absorbing CO2 is for the water to become saturated with carbonic acid. This can only happen if the flora in it stopped using the CO2. Remember that heat increases the rate of photosynthesis, and therefore increases the rate of CO2 removal from the water. As CO2 is removed from the carbonic ions, more hydroxide (byproduct of that reaction) is available to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The ability to hold CO2 in storage for future use would be curtailed by a tiny amount, yes, due to the increased thermal activity of the hydroxide/carbonate ions, but the use of CO2 by oceanic flora would increase at a much higher rate.

Heat also decreases solubility of gases. The oceans already appear to be absorbing less CO2.. I don't think it would stop absorbing altogether - as it would still cycle, but it will reduce absorption and might emit more. Essentially becoming a source rather than sink. The cold oceans absorb, the warm oceans emit. As cold oceans warm, and warm oceans get warmer...well.

The analysis is from years ago, on a related experiment. What I said (or maybe meant to say?) was, without any calculation. There is a difference.

The pH level due to even a 10C temperature change would be well within the ability of oceanic flora to handle. Oceanic temperatures cover a huge range right now, from 80F+ waters in the Gulf of Mexico, to below-freezing temperatures near the Arctic and Antarctic. Life, both flora and fauna, exist in these waters, all along a temperature range of 80+F. Somehow, worrying about a 1-2 degree change in temperature just doesn't strike me as logical.

It's not due to the temperature change, but due to CO2 levels in the ocean. It acidifies it. This would likely reduce the ability of some calcifying organisms to survive, and potentially also effect some photosynthetic organisms. The ecosystem would change, and it could happen rapdily. And adaptation takes time.

I'll make an even better deal. How about we both help the other out. I'll think some as well as pray, and you pray some as well as think.

I like prayer, but I like thinking too. People can do both, you know.

Oh. Praying would be a waste of time for me. It was just a pretty naff funny.

Plants eating CO2 is not completely accurate; it's more of an absorption process. But that's not your point.

Yeah, I know.

The notion that a substance exists in small amounts is relative to the properties of that substance. CO2 is inert to most substances; plutonium is radioactive by itself. The two simply cannot be compared in the context we are discussing.

But the point is is that in each context the substance can have negative effects. Plutonium might result in catastrophic genetic changes and grow you an extra foot, CO2 could result in rapid and catastrophic changes in climate and ecosystems and grow us a hothouse world.

If you want to state that even small amounts of CO2 are notable, that is one thing. But to state that there is nothing unscientific about comparing concentrations of CO2 and plutonium is simply untrue.

More analogy than science.

Warmer, probably. The debate is how much warmer. There are many aspects of the biosphere that are not well-understood today.

True. But various strands of evidence support the contention that climate sensitivity is of the order 2-4.5'C. Thus, for each doubling of CO2, we get a best estimate of 3'C of warming. We could easily have a couple of those. And 3'C wouldn't be good, 6'C would be very bad.

It's a risk. A very plausible possibility. One I'm not willing to ignore.

If we introduce CO2 into the atmosphere, we just raised the CO2 level. That does not mean the temperature will rise. It depends on the mechanisms to offset the CO2 level, the present temperature and composition of the atmosphere, and any side effects it may have on the biosphere in general.

I agree that the biosphere will respond. The evidence just suggests it won't be in anyway a saviour. If it took over at best 35,000 years to respond to the carbon injection during the PETM, the plants and algae ain't gonna stop another 6'C rise any time soon. We could have such a toasty environment for quite a chain of junior rednecks

IIRC, during the PETM 2000ishGtC of carbon was emitted over a period of 1000ish years. That would be 2GtC a year. We are going at around 7-8GtC per year at the moment, I think. Given, it was probably mostly methane release during the PETM, but that has a short half-life and decomposes to CO2. We could do enough CO2 for a 6'C rise easy enough. Just give us time...

[edit on 23-8-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


For doing your research, you seem to have missed a few vital points.

First of all:

I'm stunned at the number of pro-GW people that refuse to acknowledge the ice-age we are still leaving. It occurred 100,000 years ago (if you didn't know). The Earth was solid ice in Winter, to the equator. This is well known.

The Earth was not solid ice down to the equator during the last ice age. That is a hypothesis for yet another ice age...Snowball Earth...700 MILLION YEARS AGO. Well-known indeed.

You say that climate change happens naturally. Yes, it does. People die naturally too. Does that mean it is okay to go out and blow someone away? They were going to die anyway, after all... The manner in which the climate change comes about is significant! The Earth has cycles, yes, but it is not some super machine chugging away with no connection to the life living on it. We can accept that a tree will help regulate the climate -- why can we not accept that a human can have an impact too? The climates are influenced by the life populating this planet and the relations they have with each other. I hate to break it to you, but that includes us.

The problem with today’s climate change is not that it is occurring – it is because it is strikingly sudden. We warmed up at the end of the last ice age but for much of the pre-industrial Holocene period, we were actually slowly cooling again. Until the Industrial Revolution and suddenly we are warming again. The change is very fast geologically-speaking. Human habits, ecosystems – all of them can adapt, but so quickly? There are going to be difficulties.

History has shown this has all occurred before, and history has a habit of repeating itself. Now is no different.

History has never yet revealed a species beyond humans that have extended their world to include space travel, nuclear warfare, combustion engines, or use of electricity. Yet many things have happened in this planet’s history. The world used to be molten with a toxic atmosphere. It used to be covered almost completely by ice. It used to be ruled by dinos so big they could chomp us down in one, maybe two bites, and once, UV radiation was so heavy that life could not survive on land. Only trends exist; no two moments on this planet are the same, especially when you are taking them from completely different time periods. Your statement is empty and meaningless.

There was also a time 250 million years ago when 90% of all life went extinct – but it’s all okay if it happens again, right? Nothing new, Earth has seen it before. The earth can survive a lot. Unfortunately, we as a species do not have the same resiliency as a planet.

FACT: Rapid climate change often equals mass extinction. This is something that is clear in the geological records.

FACT: A climate scientist probably wouldn’t answer your Sahara-Amazon connection question because they’d be too busy wondering if you’ve ever looked at a map. The Amazon actually corresponds with the African rainforest covering most of Congo.

FACT: Excess water vapor in the air condenses into rain…for all those who are having too much fun with dihydrogen monoxide.

FACT: It’s difficult to say what the impact on hypothermia-related deaths would be. Depends on where you live. “Global warming” does not mean that every place on Earth is going to get hot. It means that the overall trend is going upward, but regional impacts are going to vary. That’s why they call it “Climate Change” now, because of that confusion.

FACT: Al Gore does expend quite a lot of electricity in his home. His home is huge and it doubles as an office. Compared to someone using just as much energy as he does, his monthly power bills are also very huge. That’s because he pays extra for “green” energy (wind, solar, and so on). The average homeowner does not.

FACT: Warmer air means more evaporation from the ocean. Back to the point above: more water vapor in the air means more rain (or snow). More precipitation means more snow for the poles – yet the coastal areas are still melting. Chew on that.

FACT: Some plants do grow better with more CO2. That’s because they don’t have to lose as much water trying to absorb it. However, they’re not as good for us any more because more CO2 lowers a plant’s nitrogen absorption. Less nitrogen means less protein.

FACT: There’s something like four times as much water locked up in the form of ice as there is in all our lakes and streams. My favorite illustration of this fact: if we were to take just Antarctica and divide up its ice among all the people of the world, we’d each have a chunk bigger than the Great Pyramid. That is a lot of water!

And the models look just fine to me.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Siblin]

reply to post by melatonin

You have some now. But I would have thought it was all rather obvious.

No, it wasn't. I tend to examine the practices of data collection before checking the data. No sense checking unreliable data. But thank you again for the info.

Well, it is well-mixed, but there are still variations according to location. Hence if you compare Mauna Loa to South Pole, you get a big seasonal variation at Mauna not present at the Pole.

And these variations are no doubt adjusted to compensate. There is another possibility for error, although not necessarily a probability. I do not suggest it invalidates the data, but rather that it gives something else to investigate when analyzing it.

I don't know if it was biased. Just another pretty naff report of science.

there seems to be quite a few of those lately.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I accept that all data is less than perfect, and all findings are tentative and open to change with new evidence.

As do I. But an extension of that is caution with proposing new policies based on what you have correctly termed 'short-term' data. That caution seems to be missing in today's political climate.

It actually shows that CO2 never rises much above 300ppm for over 400,000 years (i.e., red is CO2). Through numerous ice-age cycles, all those volcanoes going boom etc, not once.

Duh, you got me here. I was looking at the lines reversed. Good catch.

I think humans could easily survive at 1000ppm. In some way. But really society needs a degree of stability. Rapid changes in climate, with the resultant changes in agriculture, ecosytems etc etc ain't ideal for a fairly settled society.

I will agree with this; any rapid eco-change would be disastrous for societal status-quos.

But then again, it can be argued that the 'prescription' for this 'illness' can be just as disastrous as the cure. We have no energy source that does not contain carbon. If an alternate source were available, the results of new proposals would be minimalized, but until one is available... we must have energy to survive.

we are only 100ppm into the increase. Give us time. We have enough carbon to burn, and we are emitting it at rates comparable to the PETM. In fact, I think we are going faster (I'd have to check the numbers again to be really sure).

Now the question becomes the amount of time it will take for the various checks and balances to respond. I have no doubt they will respond (unless we somehow have thrown something else out of whack), BUT I also understand that the earth responds at what we as humans might term a slow rate.

Heat also decreases solubility of gases. The oceans already appear to be absorbing less CO2.. I don't think it would stop absorbing altogether - as it would still cycle, but it will reduce absorption and might emit more. Essentially becoming a source rather than sink. The cold oceans absorb, the warm oceans emit. As cold oceans warm, and warm oceans get warmer...well.

That's the same phenomena I was referring to. The solubility is dependent on the temperature of the solution. But a temperature range of a few degrees changes the solubility product only slightly. In contrast, floral growth rates can vary greatly over a small temperature range, and this would increase the sink rate more than the solubility decrease would decrease it.

At some temperature level, this relationship would change, of course, leading to exactly what you are suggesting: a CO2 exodus, if you will, from oceanic water. But that temperature is pretty high, nowhere near what we are discussing.

It's not due to the temperature change, but due to CO2 levels in the ocean. It acidifies it. This would likely reduce the ability of some calcifying organisms to survive, and potentially also effect some photosynthetic organisms. The ecosystem would change, and it could happen rapdily. And adaptation takes time.

The acidic level is dependent on the solubility (which is somewhat dependent on temperature), the available amount of atmospheric CO2, and the pressure of the atmosphere. The pressure isn't going anywhere for a while, and the availability is restricted by the solubility. In addition, any flora in the water will remove CO2.

You also have to remember that carbonic acid is still an acid if the CO2 is removed. The product is hydroxide. So it isn't like every molecule of CO2 is adding a molecule of acid; it is simply adding a slight acidity to the acid already existent. In short, I don't expect oceanic pH levels to change drastically any time soon, unless we have a temperature differential of, say, 30+ degrees F.

the point is is that in each context the substance can have negative effects. Plutonium might result in catastrophic genetic changes and grow you an extra foot, CO2 could result in rapid and catastrophic changes in climate and ecosystems and grow us a hothouse world.

I still can't go along with the analogy. Comparing plutonium to CO2 makes no sense in my mind, but to those already thinking that CO2 is some deadly poison, this is nothing but disinformation. Unscientific disinformation at that.

True. But various strands of evidence support the contention that climate sensitivity is of the order 2-4.5'C. Thus, for each doubling of CO2, we get a best estimate of 3'C of warming. We could easily have a couple of those. And 3'C wouldn't be good, 6'C would be very bad.

3'C wouldn't be a total catastrophe, IMHO, but 6'C would no doubt bring plenty of major changes. Just don't start telling me that we'll all be under 100' of water. I have seen nothing in science that approaches that prediction.

I have not seen those studies either. care to provide a link (or at least an excerpt)?

I agree that the biosphere will respond. The evidence just suggests it won't be in anyway a saviour. If it took over at best 35,000 years to respond to the carbon injection during the PETM, the plants and algae ain't gonna stop another 6'C rise any time soon. We could have such a toasty environment for quite a chain of junior rednecks

Well, look at the bright side: my great grandson can have a hot dog cookout without having the hassle of lighting a fire.

I doubt it will respond in a manner that will improve conditions, but it may well respond in a manner that will lessen the effects to a small fraction of the worst predictions.

IIRC, during the PETM 2000ishGtC of carbon was emitted over a period of 1000ish years. That would be 2GtC a year. We are going at around 7-8GtC per year at the moment, I think. Given, it was probably mostly methane release during the PETM, but that has a short half-life and decomposes to CO2. We could do enough CO2 for a 6'C rise easy enough. Just give us time...

Sure, time is cheap. How about another 100 years, then we'll re-evaluate and take needed steps. By then we should have a better idea of what's going on holistically and probably a cleaner source of energy to boot.

TheRedneck

reply to post by freeusfromthematrix


....... had to reply; forgot to sign in. Now...... it's water vapor in the atmosphere, reacting to solar activity, that controls the worldwide climate of Earth. The Earth has been cooling since 1998. The winter last year negated about 100 years of the so-called global warming. If the Sun continues it's current lack of activity, meaning if Solar Cycle 24 doesn't start soon, humanity is in for another mini ice age.
The amount of Co2 could triple, and it would hardly make a ripple in the climate. In case you haven't heard, Canadian, Australian and American scientists have concurred that Global Warming is one large hoax, meant to transfer funds from successful countries to those who still live in the 18th century; managed and distributed by, of course, the most corrupt organization in the world.

My prediction: people will keep sticking their heads in the sand, right until they find themselves under water. Just like people who insist that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, right until they get diagnosed with it. (I smoke BTW, I just don't kid myself about it. I also love sports cars and motorcycles.)

Human beings are rationalizing animals, not rational animals.
If ever there was proof, it's right here in this thread.
We form opinions that suit our needs and then come up with reasons to justify them, not the other way around.

Although I will say that those who focus on cars as the reason for rising CO2 levels are living in lala land as well - cars & trucks account for maybe 15% of it IIRC. Most of it actually comes from fuels burned for electric power generation - so I'm not sure how switching to electric cars (and thus building more powerplants) is supposed to help

What we need to do is start building nuclear plants.

Maybe orbital solar as well.

The plutonium analogy is off though - plutonium represents a far less realistic threat to the species's survival than C02.

Plutonium isn't going to change the composition of the atmosphere

[edit on 8/23/08 by xmotex]

CO2 in the past has done nothing more than create tropics and increased rain. The sea levels do not go higher. The freshwater is evaporated quicker than salt water and rain increases globally. The presence of cold water in the gulf stream won't do more than give us colder winters. Inland areas will remain at their usual temps because the sea's influence is shrunken.

In the Permian, CO2 levels at higher-then-today levels heated the planet and made more rain, but that's all it did.


Me thinks that maybe it's just that hot water is easier to evaporate than colder???


Than eventually things cool down because the increased water in the air collects pollutants, drops them down at the poles and other heavy areas, returns them to the soil, and lets the plants and germs eat them.

reply to post by TheRedneck

an aside: Years ago Dr Petr Beckmann challenged the anti-nuclear crowd to go on TV. He would match them gram for gram where he would eat plutonium and they would eat pure caffeine. No one took him up on it because caffeine is more poisonous than plutonium and most people eat caffeine everyday!