Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

I think man made carbon emission is causing anthropogenic global warming.

  • Total voters
    14
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ArcticGranite said:
Doc, to the best of my knowledge the numbers are good. 400 ppm equates to .04% of total atmospheric co2 measured from all sources, man made, biomass and ocean. Of course they are scientific best estimates, but most any source from either view will be in the ball park. And I agree that co2 ppm historic range is wide. If the co2 # I'm quoting is wrong than let's cite an accurate one. Here's a quick google, hopefully reputable. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2011/atmosphericco2.html I think the benchmark is the one from Hawaii, they've been consistently monitoring and releasing data. Point is, the actual percentage of co2 in atmosphere is tiny. Even smaller is mans contribution. Estimates bantered are in the 10-18 % range of total co2, which again is currently 400ppm, .04% of total atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Ozone is tinier yet at appx. 0.6 ppm, so not even two thousandths of CO2. Yet that tiny amount of ozone is vital to us and all land creatures.

You showed earlier the vast size of the biotic CO2 reservoir being exchanged compared to the small amount we produce.

And yet the atmospheric pCO2 has been going up in lockstep with human emissions.

This suggests that the vast swings in biotic/natural CO2 are at a saturation point in the atmosphere/ocean/land system. Were we not at saturation, why else would it go up and up in precise proportion to what we add from fossil sources? And since we seem to be at saturation, there is nowhere left for that CO2 to go. This is why so many leading scientists see danger. We're screwing with a heavily-leveraged (positively cooperative) system at its limit. We could get a casino payout hundreds of times stronger than the input, which took a century of uninterrupted fossil fuel burning. cn
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Ozone is tinier yet at appx. 0.6 ppm, so not even two thousandths of CO2. Yet that tiny amount of ozone is vital to us and all land creatures.

You showed earlier the vast size of the biotic CO2 reservoir being exchanged compared to the small amount we produce.

And yet the atmospheric pCO2 has been going up in lockstep with human emissions.


This suggests that the vast swings in biotic/natural CO2 are at a saturation point in the atmosphere/ocean/land system. Were we not at saturation, why else would it go up and up in precise proportion to what we add from fossil sources? cn
Click to expand...
Makes sense that CO2 might have reached saturation and mans additional component continues to add to it. IDK if it's in proportion to what we add.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
LOL!

were you a duck in a previous life? quite the jokester.

i'm still waiting for the resolution of this commie fluoride poisoning conspiracy.
Click to expand...
so.. global mean tremps didnt dip for the last 7-12 years? i guess the good people at yale university just dont have enough info, unlike dope growers in oregon.

~ ohh look a source. read it. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/04/common-climate-misconceptions-global-temperature-records/

ill sum up:

despite "paucity" of measurement sites, actual data and a sound theory that explains the evidence, the climate change nutbars continue to insist that the trend looks like a hockeystick, despite the general trend for the last 7 years being DOWNWARD, which is why they must 'Hide The Decline". the current fashion is to declare the general trend as upward,, intimating that the current downtrend is an anomaly, and this is oddly factual, but the "general upwardness" of the trend cant be claimed to be "anthropogenic" unless it is possibly also "Austrlopithicogenic" and "Neanderthalopogenic"

on a longer timeline than the age of disco we get a startlingly different view:
~ ohh look another source. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

so yes the general trend for the last 18000 years has been "generally upward" but for the last 12 or so it has been "unexpectedly downward" resulting in confusion and fear among those who see rising temps as vindication of their lunacy and general disarray in the house that the ipcc built.

so yeah. chicken little can call me a duck, that doesnt mean the sky is actually falling.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite said:
Doc, to the best of my knowledge the numbers are good. 400 ppm equates to .04% of total atmospheric co2 measured from all sources, man made, biomass and ocean. Of course they are scientific best estimates, but most any source from either view will be in the ball park. And I agree that co2 ppm historic range is wide. If the co2 # I'm quoting is wrong than let's cite an accurate one. Here's a quick google, hopefully reputable. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2011/atmosphericco2.html I think the benchmark is the one from Hawaii, they've been consistently monitoring and releasing data. Point is, the actual percentage of co2 in atmosphere is tiny. Even smaller is mans contribution. Estimates bantered are in the 10-18 % range of total co2, which again is currently 400ppm, .04% of total atmosphere.
Click to expand...
ok so i been reading it wrong.

.04% not 4%

fuck you. now i gotta go get glasses.

yeah im blaming you.

now i gotta figure out who is to blame for the hair on my palms.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ArcticGranite said:
Makes sense that CO2 might have reached saturation and mans additional component continues to add to it. IDK if it's in proportion to what we add.
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia:

Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[SUP][16][/SUP] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] to emitted CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods. Estimated carbon in global terrestrial vegetation increased from approximately 740 billion tons in 1910 to 780 billion tons in 1990.[SUP][17]

So it's not quite as critical as I feared. Slightly over half is still being laundered, but it looks like it's being done more by land plants sequestering carbon than by the oceans.
This also suggests that massive agriculture of woody plants followed by burying all that biomass would be one way to bring CO2 back down, should the natural mechanisms need supplementation. (Which is faintly ridiculous, since the amount of energy needed to harvest and bury that biomass will be significant, just at a time when we would have worked our way into an economic corner that makes the Fiscal Cliff look like badly-laid carpet.) cn
[/SUP]
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
From Wikipedia:[SUP]
This also suggests that massive agriculture of woody plants followed by burying all that biomass would be one way to bring CO2 back down, should the natural mechanisms need supplementation. (Which is faintly ridiculous, since the amount of energy needed to harvest and bury that biomass will be significant, just at a time when we would have worked our way into an economic corner that makes the Fiscal Cliff look like badly-laid carpet.) cn
[/SUP]
Click to expand...
Living in the arctic near a research U I hear and read of seemingly valid concerns of warming and co2. If we do warm, look out. Our frozen tundra has a buttload of frozen peat and organic mtl ready to unleash the katrina of co2 dumps into the atmosphere. Recently saw photo's and a short vid of methane off gassing. What was cool is that a researcher found small lakes and ponds that aren't frozen/have holes in ice/or very little ice cover. And methane was burping up thru the water. At freezing cold temps. I'll post if I see it. Spent the a.m. looking at insolation and temp. Another rabbit hole. I wonder how many of the better growers are supplementing grows with co2? Irony?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ArcticGranite said:
Living in the arctic near a research U I hear and read of seemingly valid concerns of warming and co2. If we do warm, look out. Our frozen tundra has a buttload of frozen peat and organic mtl ready to unleash the katrina of co2 dumps into the atmosphere. Recently saw photo's and a short vid of methane off gassing. What was cool is that a researcher found small lakes and ponds that aren't frozen/have holes in ice/or very little ice cover. And methane was burping up thru the water. At freezing cold temps. I'll post if I see it. Spent the a.m. looking at insolation and temp. Another rabbit hole. I wonder how many of the better growers are supplementing grows with co2? Irony?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's ironic because the indoor growers don't mind a locally hot damp climate. The real problem with global warming (should it happen, and regardless how caused) is that a seemingly small avg. temp. rise of 2 degrees can have amazingly big consequences. And as you say, there is also a worry that the small rise could precipitate booster mechanisms involving release of carbon-bearing gases.
The stakes are enormous, but the payout matrix very unclear. The question i cannot answer is which causes greater harm: crippling our economies now, or letting the warming happen ... with possibly worse consequences?

Other unanswered questions: if we hit the brakes hard now, will the anthropogenic component removal be enough to halt and reverse warming?
If we hit the brakes hard now, are we getting into an international Prisoner's Dilemma scenario in which we get done over by nations like India and China, running their economies without regard for the world's air as they burn their abundant coal (and quite possibly gain military ascendancy)?

So even if one accepts that the globe is warming toward disaster due to our industrial effluents ... what to do is clear as mud. Jmo. cn
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Dr Kynes said:






pretty sure it's This broad right here...
Click to expand...
The pic came from a search of "ladyboys". Among all the willowy SE Asian androgynes in stripper outfits was this somewhat aesthetically challenged and generationally isolated exemplar. The nonobvious ladyboyness amused me. cn
 
ArcticGranite

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The pic came from a search of "ladyboys". Among all the willowy SE Asian androgynes in stripper outfits was this somewhat aesthetically challenged and generationally isolated exemplar. The nonobvious ladyboyness amused me. cn
Click to expand...
And SHe's already into pearl necklaces! What other corruptions await.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
you guys are all dicks!

thats Lauren Bacall.

fuck you guys

you made me spiut coffe onto my keyboard again.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
hmmm, who to trust?

scientists in 48 countries, or a guy who's still trying to crack the commie fluoride conspiracy?

tough call.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
TroncoChe said:
Man is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Global climate change is not influenced by guilt or innocence. I contend we should be more concerned with our normal return to a massive glaciation period of, what, 250,000 years , before worrying about warming to what, medieval times, if that. Look at a historical temp chart that covers the last million years ago.............................................."Obliquity, the angle between Earth's equatorial and orbital planes or the tilt in Earth's axis, varies between 22.5 and 24 degrees during a cycle of 41,000 years. As the tilt increases, so does the annual average sunlight reaching high latitudes, and these are the conditions under which Huybers and Wunsch find that glaciations end. Earth's tilt is currently 23.5 degrees and decreasing. Without the much more rapid anthropogenic or human influences on climate, Earth would probably be slowly moving toward glaciation."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top