Uh oh another one jumps ship

[Skull]

Thanks for beating me to the punch Shakey ... look at the graphs, there are basically two ... and the one with the Mona Lua overlay is propbably the most telling... everyone of them show an increase in ambient temps followed by an increase in CO2 concentrations ....however the composition of the overall gases in the atmosphere stay constant ...why????????? because the sinks are very efficient and the percentage of CO2 is infinitesimal .... it is basic engineering ... and earth has the most efficient sytems in place to sink CO2 ....

Look at it like this you have 2x10^18 sparkles of several basic colors in a sphere and .001% of them are white you double the whites to .002% but at the same time you have machines which eat only white sparkles ...and the machines are set to ballance the sphere so only about .001% can survive ...oh by the way the machines pump out ~ the same amount of blue sparkles as a by product ...get it!

 

[Wayward Son]

There are scientists researching this who claim that the focus on co2 is wrong & that water vapor is a far more significant player in temps.

 

[Thrillhouse]

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?

I don't think the discrepancy is in the 800 to 1000 year range, but certainly on the order of years to decades. Regardless, a correlation between an increase in CO2 levels (as well as other gases [like methane], though CO2 is the biggest issue right now due to the severity of its increase) and global temperature have been well-established.

And no, an increase in temperature alone could not cause a rise in CO2, unless it caused a massive die-off of the biological carbon sinks (HUGE tracts of forests and the obliteration of algae) or increased volcanic activity (releasing carbon from its mineral-form in the crust).

Look at it like this you have 2x10^18 sparkles of several basic colors in a sphere and .001% of them are white you double the whites to .002% but at the same time you have machines which eat only white sparkles ...and the machines are set to ballance the sphere so only about .001% can survive ...oh by the way the machines pump out ~ the same amount of blue sparkles as a by product ...get it!

The fact that the parts per million ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is small relative to other gases (like oxygen and nitrogen) is irrelevant. Even in its small amounts, CO2 is extremely important for the temperature of our planet; if the .0001% (for sake of argument) were to disappear entirely, our planet would have an ambient temperature below freezing the world over. Simply because it isn't a major constituent of the atmosphere doesn't mean it isn't vitally important to how the atmosphere affects global temperature levels.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

No, from what I have read, the discrepancy is in the many hundreds of years. Curiously, this time lag seems to be uncontested, even by pro-GW people who continue to point to the "correlation" historically of CO2 and temp in the ice record, despite the fact that temp rises first. Besides, even if it were only decades, how can carbon dioxide raise temp when temp goes up before carbon dioxide rises? We can speculate all we want, but there is a clear temporal causality problem here.

 

[Hockeynut]

JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

 

[trigfunctions]

everyone of them show an increase in ambient temps followed by an increase in CO2 concentrations ....however the composition of the overall gases in the atmosphere stay constant ...why?????????

Skull - the composition of the overall gases in the atmosphere does not stay constant. If the concentration of one gas increases, by definition the concentration of other gases must decrease. You must be confusing quantity with concentration. This makes sense, since you said you were EE and not ChemE. If the ppm of CO2 increases, then something else decreases because ppm is a measure of concentration. A percentage or a ppm is a ratio, not an absolute quantity.

If the atmosphere was 1% CO2, 19% O2, and 80%N2, and you burned enough carbon to increase the percentage of CO2 to 2%, the concentration of O2 would be 18%.
That is what is happening as the CO2 concentrations are increasing, except the concentration of CO2 is so low compared to the concentration of O2 that the change in O2 concentration is negligible.

In addition, you are correct that sinks are absorbing CO2 - the ocean especially. That is why the chemistry of the ocean is also slowly changing, which can also have devastating effects.

 

[ianw2]

I've looked through this thread and done a search from Bob Carter. I didn't find it anywhere on SB. So...

I'm still on the fence. I see "bad science" and "really bad math" on both sides of the argument. As a classically trained scientist - chemist, I'm often frustrated by the way science is reported in the news (similar feeling to the O₂ tanks we divers wear on our backs when diving).

Yesterday, I listened to a report that claimed 2,000 tons of CO₂ were produced from burning 4,000 gallons of fuel oil in one the Sea Shepard's boats. I must have been asleep when the laws of conservation of matter were repealed.

So, has anyone had a chance to view these videos from one of Bob Carter's lectures? Any thoughts?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Ian

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Bob Carter was one of the scientists who testified before Congress during the last GW hearings, but his view didn't get much press. I heard him talk on a local radio show in the US and that was the first time I heard that the paleological ice core record of CO2 shows that temp goes up before carbon dioxide. He is a major thorn in the GW hystericals side, because it is difficult for them to thrust the 'you don't discuss the data!' barb against him.

 

[deeper thoughts]

Bob Carter was one of the scientists who testified before Congress during the last GW hearings, but his view didn't get much press. I heard him talk on a local radio show in the US and that was the first time I heard that the paleological ice core record of CO2 shows that temp goes up before carbon dioxide. He is a major thorn in the GW hystericals side, because it is difficult for them to thrust the 'you don't discuss the data!' barb against him.

At least he testified unlike someone else who will remain nameless. This person just read a statement and refused to take questions by some memebers of the committee. I wonder why? HMMMM

 

[Skull]

TRIG the reason is
a) the CO2 is infinitesimal compared to all of the other gases so it can be recycled much faster than O2 and N and CO for that matter. Not to mention a 100% increase in CO2 gives .08% ...yet we know the composition of CO2 for the past to be .04% ...get it.
b) Taking a snap shot of CO2 at a test point doesn't give an accurate picture of the entire overall composition of the entire atmosphere ...yea at Mona the CO2 is high but at the south pole it is very stable @ .04% its a mighty big planet and it can absorb and recycle alot of gas ...

TRIG I asume you know something about math ...statistically .04% of anything is negligible ...by definition.