| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
 Posted:Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject |
    |
|
| Quote: | It wasn't missed, there are many causes for the rise in CO2 written about in many places. Burning oil is surely one of many causes for the rise. Paving over swamps and farm fields to make parking lots is another. Polluting the oceans and decreasing planktop density is another. How many other causes need I list to prove that humans burning oil is not the only cause? (that's a rhetorical question, the answer is 1).
|
All of the things you mentioned are anthropogenic, and add up to the ~30 billions tons per year. Of course, burning oil is not the only cause, we all know that. Burning natural gas, coal, deforestation, and other effects you mention are in there too.
| Quote: | Most of the CO2 we release goes into growing plants and plankton who just love to eat the stuff, in fast they can't live without it.
|
I think that's false, but won't take the time to research it. Let's say you're right. The point is what? That it's OK?
If we are contributing 30 billion tons per year to the environment, 16 billion tons (most) of which is absorbed by plants and plankton, 10 billion tons go into the ocean, and 4 billion tons go into the atmosphere, is that OK? The atmosphere contains 3000 billion tons, so an extra 4 billion tons/yr is about 0.1%. Even ignoring potential non-linear effects like albedo change and methane release, it's a little hard to ignore an effect like that.
Anyway, if memory serves me, something like 50% of anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere. If so, it is impossible for most of it to be taken up by plants and plankton.
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject |
|
|
| jdeere5220 wrote: | | Occam wrote: | | The year to year rise is of course due to the burning of fossil fuels. |
Of course. It's 100% caused by burning fossil fuels. No question. There is absolutely no possibility that there are many causes. |
Not 100%, 200% of the CO2 rise is caused by humans - most of this 200% comes from burning fossil fuels. But then half of it is fixed by organics or dissolved into the ocean where it acidifies the water - the rest is accumulating in the atmosphere.
We know it is caused by burning fossil fuels not only because of the obvious arithmetic of emissions versus accumulation, but we can tell that the source of the carbon is fossil fuels by the carbon isotope ratios in plants/air/fossil fuels and ocean; for example C13/C12 ratio is decreasing -fossil fuels have low C13 content. Also atmospheric O2 is being depleted as it is combined with carbon (burned).
Note the decrease in CO2 with carbon 13, while CO2 in general is increasing.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xracer
Super Burner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:14 pm Post subject |
|
|
| jdeere5220 wrote: | | Occam wrote: | | The year to year rise is of course due to the burning of fossil fuels. |
Of course. It's 100% caused by burning fossil fuels. No question. There is absolutely no possibility that there are many causes. |
Of course, there is no other explanation; Occam has spoken. It is a bit puzzling anyone would claim annual cycles of CO2 are driven by fossil fuels. Next ask Occam and mddorogi where the IPCC 50-200 (even 1000) year residency time for CO2 is derived from 
CO2- the gas of life.
_________________
St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted:Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: | Next ask Occam and mddorogi where the IPCC 50-200 (even 1000) year residency time for CO2 is derived from
|
Gosh, those red herrings are big these days  Must be all that extra heat. Yeah, jdeere, you can ask us, as long as you ask xracer where he gets his 5 (week/year/hour, I forget) residency time.
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdeere5220
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 730
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject |
|
|
| mddorogi wrote: | | Of course, burning oil is not the only cause, we all know that. |
| Occam wrote: | | The year to year rise is of course due to the burning of fossil fuels. |
Hmm... call me crazy but those two statements seem just a tad contradictory. Mark are you sure you want to cross the Great Occam like that? Why don't you guys huddle up and decide who is right and then get back to us?
_________________
Maxim M250 outdoor corn/pellet burner
Old Beat-up Gravity Box
I support Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mddorogi
Super Burner
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 1115
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted:Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:28 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: | Hmm... call me crazy but those two statements seem just a tad contradictory. Mark are you sure you want to cross the Great Occam like that? Why don't you guys huddle up and decide who is right and then get back to us?
|
tsk, tsk, you should realize by now that Occam and I are both right! 
You mentioned burning oil as opposed to burning fossil fuels so I said of course, burning oil wasn't the only cause - there's other fossil fuels, land use, etc.
So there's no doubt that the rise is due to anthropogenic causes - burning fossil fuels. Occam's also right in that we're responsible for 200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 we measure - because half is taken up in the oceans and other sinks.
_________________
Mark
Dell Point Europa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xracer
Super Burner
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:17 pm Post subject |
|
|
| mddorogi wrote: | | Quote: | Next ask Occam and mddorogi where the IPCC 50-200 (even 1000) year residency time for CO2 is derived from
|
Gosh, those red herrings are big these days Must be all that extra heat. Yeah, jdeere, you can ask us, as long as you ask xracer where he gets his 5 (week/year/hour, I forget) residency time. |
Why, I get it from the "consensus" science.
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
http://www.co2web.info/
Nah, what would chemists know about CO2 when unlicensed programmers can give any answer politicians want from climate models? Of course there's always that 1000 year to infinity nonsense you and Occam would fall for. But hey, if they're gonna make something up, might as well jump the shark.
I can't wait for the 3000% savings from Obamacare so my employer will pass the savings on to my paycheck, can you? How's that hope and change working? Does it feel good to be a ward of the state?
_________________
St. Croix Auburn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:46 am Post subject |
|
|
How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?
All the world's power plants, vehicles and factories that presently exist may not emit enough carbon dioxide to cause catastrophic climate change
Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science.... http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;329/5997/1330?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:45 am Post subject |
|
|
| xracer wrote: | | mddorogi wrote: | | Quote: | Next ask Occam and mddorogi where the IPCC 50-200 (even 1000) year residency time for CO2 is derived from
|
Gosh, those red herrings are big these days Must be all that extra heat. Yeah, jdeere, you can ask us, as long as you ask xracer where he gets his 5 (week/year/hour, I forget) residency time. |
Why, I get it from the "consensus" science.
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
http://www.co2web.info/
Nah, what would chemists know about CO2 when unlicensed programmers can give any answer politicians want from climate models? Of course there's always that 1000 year to infinity nonsense you and Occam would fall for. But hey, if they're gonna make something up, might as well jump the shark.
I can't wait for the 3000% savings from Obamacare so my employer will pass the savings on to my paycheck, can you? How's that hope and change working? Does it feel good to be a ward of the state? |
The Buckeyes caned the Canes last night. But now that I am recovering from a day of great college football and the requisite beverages partaken in the spirit of,.... I'll entertain myself by revealing another slight of hand trick that the cat dragged into the forum.
The average CO2 molecule does spend only a few years in the atmosphere, hence the ~5 year residence times cited above - and, by the way, also cited by the IPCC 2007 climate report.
The problem is that the residence time of CO2 in the ocean surface is about the same as in the atmosphere, so while one molecule is absorbed by the ocean another molecule pops back out into the atmosphere. Actually there is a a net absorption into the ocean surface because a fraction of the Co2 goes into the deep ocean, but that net absorption rate is an order of magnitude slower than that for a single molecule. So the effective residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than 100 years. The graph manufactured by the propogandist above is comparing apples and oranges: i.e. single molecule residence time (green) versus effective mass residence time (red). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
