Uh oh another one jumps ship

[trigfunctions]

Point is the ppm of CO2 is increasing assuming the measurements are correct yet the total composition of our atmosphere is incredibly stable ...what gives? So how much of an increase in CO2 must happen before it begins to nudge out the other gases and actually displaces them in the composition of the atmosphere... cause I can't seem to get anyone to address this point.

As carbon is burned, it is combined with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Thus, creating CO2 causes a reduction in O2. This has been measured, but since O2 is almost 20% of the atmosphere the reduction is extremely small by comparison.

Also, the atmosphere is not a closed, stable, or homogeneous system. It is influenced by the land, the waters, and changes in its outer reaches.

In short, yes, the CO2 concentrations are increasing, even though you want to believe they are not and can not. The measurements are correct.

 

[BTravlin]

Let me ask you this: if the "fix" for pollution meant that you personally had to pay an extra 35% of your family's income to the UN, would you do it? Why not? Don't you want to save the earth?

Is that 35% of our total income or 35% of the 50% they already graciously allow me to keep?

By the way Shaky, you're much more persuasive when you stick to logical arguments rather than throwing all the emotional hand grenades like earlier in the thread.

 

[Far_X]

What species "respects" the environment? Do algae care that they converted the atmosphere from methane to oxygen, "wrecking" the environment of their era? Do shellfish care if they disturb the calcium flux of the oceans, or that the massive weight of their numbers sinking to the ocean floor may have actually cracked the planet into teutonic plates? Do beavers care if their dam shatters a local ecosystem? Do polar bears measure their impact on seal populations?

Or are we somehow uniquely charged with limiting ourselves for fear of "hurting" the planet? Stop the new Age tree-hugging platitudes. Like any species, we take from the earth what we want. We are entitled to survive and push the envelope of the environment. If we get greedy, we will go extinct. End of story. We are no better or worse than the earthworms who chew up the ground, or the locusts of consume vaste areas of foliage.

You are so wrong. We are different in that we are aware of the entire planet and see the consequences of our actions, well some of us can. The animals are only looking to eat, they are not looking for any other profit from that. We, on the other hand, are not just content in surviving, we want to make money, and lots of money, and a lot of people do that the best they can and don't give a damn about the consequences of their actions.

I understand the principal of over population and over pollution in a contained environment is detrimental having studied that in biology. So I agree with you, "if we get greedy, we will go extinct" The problem with that is that we'll have taken out most other species before we go and I am not prepared to see that happen. I doubt that will happen in my life time but the thought of it being possible is enough to be willing to do something about it.

Did anyone read this? Climate science: Sceptical about bias

Taster:

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

That was a view I put forward nearly a year ago now in another article for the BBC News website, and nothing has changed my mind since.

The year seems to have brought no diminution of the accusations flying around the blogosphere.

"The research itself is biased," as one recent blog entry put it.

"Scientists are quick to find what they're looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government."

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did, which made me wonder whether there was any evidence.

Drought or deluge?

In that earlier article, I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias.

For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims.

Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Is that 35% of our total income or 35% of the 50% they already graciously allow me to keep?

By the way Shaky, you're much more persuasive when you stick to logical arguments rather than throwing all the emotional hand grenades like earlier in the thread.

Good point about the taxes. I don't mean to throw emotional hand grenades, I am merely questioning those who so strongly believe the planet is in peril that we should strong arm others into certain modes of behavior (examples: Portland wants a carbon tax, California wants to make incandescent bulbs illegal, the EU wants a carbon tax, the UN wants to make certain "carbon offenses" criminal, etc), yet will make no gesture of personal sacrifice.

It's like Warren Buffett, who feels that he, like other higher income brackets, should pay more taxes; however, the IRS allows people to VOLUNTARILY pay more taxes if they desire. He has not done so and dodges the question when asked why not. Thus, he really is not interested or willing to pay more HIMSELF, he only desires the power to do it to others. Gore and his ilk continue to fly fuel guzzling jets to meaningless speeches, and we have the Hollywood elite at the awards shows telling us to use public transportation AS IF any of THEM would be seen in a bus.

Yet I am supposed to shell out 10 grand for solar panels and take the subway or a bicycle to work.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

You are so wrong. We are different in that we are aware of the entire planet and see the consequences of our actions, well some of us can. The animals are only looking to eat, they are not looking for any other profit from that. We, on the other hand, are not just content in surviving, we want to make money, and lots of money, and a lot of people do that the best they can and don't give a damn about the consequences of their actions.

I understand the principal of over population and over pollution in a contained environment is detrimental having studied that in biology. So I agree with you, "if we get greedy, we will go extinct" The problem with that is that we'll have taken out most other species before we go and I am not prepared to see that happen. I doubt that will happen in my life time but the thought of it being possible is enough to be willing to do something about it.

Did anyone read this? Climate science: Sceptical about bias

Taster:

So we are somehow "special" among species? We somehow have a unique responsibility to the environment that no other species has? Why?

The animals are looking only to eat? What sort of nonsense is that? All species proliferate and manipulate their environment to their benefit, to the fullest extent that their particular talents and adaptations allow. They aren't checked by some internal empathy for other living things, or some sort of socialistic "take only what I need" philosophy. They are checked only by the limitation of available resources and the presence of competing species. Do you think African driver ants show mercy, or locusts somehow sign a pact to eat and multiply only to the extent that is "reasonable" and which shows "respect" for the earth or other species? No. Any species, including us, will suck from the earth what we want and drive any other species to extinction that gets in our way. THAT is how life progresses. If a species can't compete with our presence on the earth, that it must either adapt or go extinct and if it goes extinct, it DESERVES to go extinct and make way for better species. Modern environmentalists are Darwinian Luddites. They want biological technology to stay just as it is. To halt extinction is to halt competition for survival which is to halt evolution. Is that natural? Biological advancement is about each species selfishly seeking its own maximal impact on the earth, period. We are a cruel species, but Nature is cruel. It isn't about the survival of the cutest creatures (the vast majority of the biomass of this planet are nasty insects, crustaceans and plankton and microbes, and has been for some time). The biological world you think you love, the Disney-form playground of lions and tigers and bears and seals, is a very minor interlude in natural history.

No species has some pre-ordained right to exist. Over 95% of species from the beginning of time are now gone, the vast majority before we ever got here.

The goal of environmentalism is really about human chauvinism. For some unexplained reason, some people have convinced themselves that we now live in EDEN --- the climate RIGHT NOW is best and must be preserved in amber forever; the species that exist now (at least the cuddly ones, not smallpox which is near extinction but no one seems to mind) must be preserved forever. Processes like climate change and species extinction that have gone unchecked for billions of years must now be HALTED! No single species can go extinct, the temperature can't vary BY A SINGLE DEGREE, the ocean level must stay constant within INCHES just where it is in 2007. The ice packs can never change. Storms must never strike the coasts. Do you think we can stop these processes, that we are that special or powerful?

I see schizophrenia here: are we saving the globe because we are pyramid-wearing New Age globe lovers, or because we don't want million-dollar beach front property to be damaged? If it's the former, who died and made you lords of Mother Earth? And if it's the second, why, that seems as greedy and money mongering as Exxon.

So I ask: why is it so important to keep the planet exactly as it is right now, when such stasis has never happened before? For our own self-preservation? If so, that's a legitimate reason in my opinion, but not the politically popular one, nor the one advanced by environmentalism. In the latter's view, this current biosphere is somehow spiritually special and must be protected not for OUR sake, but for the "planet's sake".

News flash: the planet doesn't give a s***. It has seen worse than us before, and will see worse from us in the future. It doesn't need our help, it has done just fine for five eons. Go diving.

 

[Skull]

As carbon is burned, it is combined with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Thus, creating CO2 causes a reduction in O2. This has been measured, but since O2 is almost 20% of the atmosphere the reduction is extremely small by comparison.

Also, the atmosphere is not a closed, stable, or homogeneous system. It is influenced by the land, the waters, and changes in its outer reaches.

In short, yes, the CO2 concentrations are increasing, even though you want to believe they are not and can not. The measurements are correct.

Actually it is not what I want ...it is what my gas analyzer and every other gas analyzer on this planet is reading. See TRIG I don't believe in Voodoo ..though a chiropractor in TJ worked a miracle last summer on my back to this day it has not gone out which could easily could be summed up as voodoo ..I believe in science. So they say the CO2 concentrations have increased from 150 ppm to well over 300ppm ...great I can understand that. I am asking if we are creating more CO2 where is it going since it is NOT becoming evident in the overall measurment of the COMPOSITION which makes up every gas inside of our atmosphere. Surely the CO2 concetrations should be well over 4/100th of 1 %. Mind you CO2 doesn't even make up 1 tenth of 1 % of our atmosphere. To my method of understanding if CO2 is increasing then it has to be evident in the measuring of the atmosphere. And if it isn't then it has to be going somewhere since like you said this isn't a closed system ...though just so you understand I am an electrical engineer who just happens to use system analysis on a daily basis and can inform you that the atmosphere according to scientist is a closed loop system with multiple feedback systems. That being said for the past 1 billion yrs or so the earths atmosphere has been incredibly stable in its composition. And that composition has not changed over the past 150 yrs. So if the CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere regarding its relationship with all of the other gases in the atmosphere were is it going and why doesn't it begin to crowd out all of the other gases which make up our atmosphere?

 

[Skull]

Ahhh haa Shakey you have revealed what is behind the cutain my skull repairing friend ..most enviromentalist are truly narcissists ...which if you truly have an ear for the meaning sums all of this AGW emotionalism up ...

I have witnessed with my own eyes the utter cruelity of nature and and can tell you that this planet has no need for humans whatsoever other than to advance the science of evolution which is constant. However I will say that George Carlin may be right and the planet really needs plastic and we are the vehichle by which it got it ...just a thought!

Was watching Buffet this week dribble on about taxes and how his secretary payes more than him (kinda sad how old age just rips the reasoning skills out of a man)...course she does since he doesn't take an income ..maybe he should trust some of his dough to her and then she will be like him and pay no taxes ... Warren be a man and stop giving money to Bill Gates ...as if he needs it ... and give to the Ca Dept of Education ...were it can be wasted faster than you can make it !ha ha ha !!

 

[trigfunctions]

Actually it is not what I want ...it is what my gas analyzer and every other gas analyzer on this planet is reading. See TRIG I don't believe in Voodoo ..though a chiropractor in TJ worked a miracle last summer on my back to this day it has not gone out which could easily could be summed up as voodoo ..I believe in science. So they say the CO2 concentrations have increased from 150 ppm to well over 300ppm ...great I can understand that. I am asking if we are creating more CO2 where is it going since it is NOT becoming evident in the overall measurment of the COMPOSITION which makes up every gas inside of our atmosphere. Surely the CO2 concetrations should be well over 4/100th of 1 %. Mind you CO2 doesn't even make up 1 tenth of 1 % of our atmosphere. To my method of understanding if CO2 is increasing then it has to be evident in the measuring of the atmosphere. And if it isn't then it has to be going somewhere since like you said this isn't a closed system ...though just so you understand I am an electrical engineer who just happens to use system analysis on a daily basis and can inform you that the atmosphere according to scientist is a closed loop system with multiple feedback systems. That being said for the past 1 billion yrs or so the earths atmosphere has been incredibly stable in its composition. And that composition has not changed over the past 150 yrs. So if the CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere regarding its relationship with all of the other gases in the atmosphere were is it going and why doesn't it begin to crowd out all of the other gases which make up our atmosphere?

Skull - you're not making sense. The concentration of CO2 in the air is increasing, the concentration of O2 is decreasing. The composition of the atmosphere HAS changed in the past 150 years. That's all there is to it.

 

[Thrillhouse]

am asking if we are creating more CO2 where is it going since it is NOT becoming evident in the overall measurment of the COMPOSITION which makes up every gas inside of our atmosphere. Surely the CO2 concetrations should be well over 4/100th of 1 %. Mind you CO2 doesn't even make up 1 tenth of 1 % of our atmosphere. To my method of understanding if CO2 is increasing then it has to be evident in the measuring of the atmosphere. And if it isn't then it has to be going somewhere since like you said this isn't a closed system ...

I think you should be careful to draw attention to your great faith in science since you don't seem to know much about how CO2 operates within the Earth's systems. The vast majority of CO2 is re-absorbed into physical and biological sinks, which is why only a portion (there's a ratio which I don't have handy) appears in the atmosphere. An enormous amount of CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, as well as by any and all photosynthesising organisms. When looking at CO2 graphs which integrate seasonal levels, I'm sure you've noticed the fluctuation within a year. I'll assume you have looked at such graphs, since you have a strong opinion on this issue. Anyway, the annual rise and fall is thought by many climatologists to be an expression of the northern boreal forests absorbing CO2 in the foliated months (when they're actively photosynthesising) and expiring it as they go dormant in the winter.

A very interesting bit of information I recently heard about was about scientists taking deep samples of Antarctic ice. As ice retains CO2 in tiny air-pockets, accurate levels of the gas can be measured in relation to the geologic time-period the sample comes from. Not surprisingly, a direct correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperature over the past few tens of thousands of years was established, just another of many such instances where the two intersect. Scientists are currently working on acquiring a very deep sample which will be able to measure the CO2 levels reaching as far back as 1MYA.

As a final note, a few comments here have been made along the lines of "if global warming is happening, why did we have a record level of snow last winter, etc?" The fact of the matter is that global systems do not operate in unison, often taking a number of years to catch up. Just because you remove a key-stone species from an ecosystem does not mean the ecosystem will crash overnight; still, it will eventually fall into delapidation as the complex network of established interactions fall into disarray.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I think you should be careful to draw attention to your great faith in science since you don't seem to know much about how CO2 operates within the Earth's systems. The vast majority of CO2 is re-absorbed into physical and biological sinks, which is why only a portion (there's a ratio which I don't have handy) appears in the atmosphere. An enormous amount of CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, as well as by any and all photosynthesising organisms. When looking at CO2 graphs which integrate seasonal levels, I'm sure you've noticed the fluctuation within a year. I'll assume you have looked at such graphs, since you have a strong opinion on this issue. Anyway, the annual rise and fall is thought by many climatologists to be an expression of the northern boreal forests absorbing CO2 in the foliated months (when they're actively photosynthesising) and expiring it as they go dormant in the winter.

A very interesting bit of information I recently heard about was about scientists taking deep samples of Antarctic ice. As ice retains CO2 in tiny air-pockets, accurate levels of the gas can be measured in relation to the geologic time-period the sample comes from. Not surprisingly, a direct correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperature over the past few tens of thousands of years was established, just another of many such instances where the two intersect. Scientists are currently working on acquiring a very deep sample which will be able to measure the CO2 levels reaching as far back as 1MYA.

As a final note, a few comments here have been made along the lines of "if global warming is happening, why did we have a record level of snow last winter, etc?" The fact of the matter is that global systems do not operate in unison, often taking a number of years to catch up. Just because you remove a key-stone species from an ecosystem does not mean the ecosystem will crash overnight; still, it will eventually fall into delapidation as the complex network of established interactions fall into disarray.

I am just bringing this up as a query, I am sure I will get grief about it since it is apparently a sore area of contention, but do not those paleological CO2 ice samples show that yes, there is a correlation between temp and CO2, but also that temp rises first and CO2 rises 800 to 1000 years later? Doesn't this suggest that temp rises CAUSE increased CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around? Could the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide be an epiphenomenon (due to increased outgassing from the oceans perhaps, or reduced plant utilization) of increasing temps?