Global Warming

“BUT Bison to correctly debate their science of consensus you must have HARD CORE facts. THey must be tested and determined to be accurate to within a nanomicron....then they will use their sweeping generalization to prove you are an evil "denier" and therefore not worthy of acceptance.”

“The facts have been posted here over and over again. The record of climate change from the ice core data is clear, the temperature increases, then atmospheric CO2 increases, not vice versa.”

“Discuss

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek;_ylt=AkE7qyDPJwJhlpk5hoLnkBLMWM0F”

“bison, It kn0cks me over hearing this perspective that inconvenient truth is based on such twisting of the facts.
techntrek, it's clear t at the oceans DO emit co2, contrary to your earlier belief. I don't t ink these facts should offend us so much. It's more important to know the truth than do belueve something because it's popular.

interesting information bison. thanks for the video. I'll be certain to share this.”

“"...no mention is made of total CO2 output."

Um, you are correct. Because the worldwide net effect of the oceans is to absorb the CO2, not release it. Corey's linked article is very clear on this. You still believe the oceans are emitting CO2 but the very article you use for support says "In balance, the global oceans annually take up about 2 billion tons of carbon through sea-air exchange of CO2 gas." You can't just ignore that huge piece of information, its the foundation of the whole article. The oceans emit some CO2 at the equator but suck up a whole lot more north of the equator all the way up to the poles.

We have a glass of water at 8 AM with 3 lead weights in the bottom. You take out 1 at 1 PM, I put in 2 at 8 PM. At midnight the glass of water has 4 lead weights in it. It has "absorbed" more lead overall even though at 1 PM it did loose some. You can't say it is emitting lead when at the end of the day it has one more lead weight in it than it did in the morning.


"But the ice core data clearly show large releases of stored CO2 from the ocean in conjunction all previous warming periods."

We are as warm now as many other points on the timeline and yet "The analysis highlights the fact that today’s rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is already 27 percent higher than its highest recorded level during the last 650,000 years" (reference is the 1st link below). You can find the actual CO2 chart at the 2nd link below. The current level is shown with a red arrow in the top right corner - NOT at the end of the blue line down below.

So we haven't gotten any warmer (yet) than at any other time in history yet the CO2 is WAY WAY WAY higher than it has been at any time in the last 650K years. If your logic was correct then the global average temperature should have spiked up BEFORE 150 years ago. It hasn't. Because the answer to "which came first" isn't the temperature, its the CO2. Only now is the global temperature rising to catch up to the CO2 levels.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/aaft-nee111805.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg”

“I gotta ask...who was taking those measurements 650,000 years ago...Just gotta know (LOL)..or is that the Consensus among the "experts" on your side?”

“roseymonster - Most winters the coldest temp I see on my back porch all winter long is in the mid-teens. This year it got down to 2F last month. Does this mean I can expect next winter to be that cold or even colder? Or that this summer will be cooler? The answer is "no".

In statistics you will find unusual data points called "outliers". On a bell curve they are the ones that fall at the far ends of the curve - they don't fit in with the rest of the data. There will be times when it gets unusually cold, but that does not mean we are getting colder. Worldwide temperature readings from the last 150 years have shown very clearly that temps are going up.”

“150 years....thats the basis for your information...ONEHUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS.

Tech. On a Geological Scale whats that...less than a blink in world time?”

“XL, its the same chart that Bison and Corey were referring to. No "side" owns the chart.

Its just the numbers that have come from the teams that have measured the composition of the air bubbles in the ice. I guess yet another thing you don't know a thing about, I'll add it to your list.”

“Going by the chart XL, we are talking about 650,000 years. Get with the program.”

“Uh, Tech, your own link clearly shows higher CO2 concentrations during the last 650,000 years...

and the temp data on the graph is way out of whack compared to any other source I've ever seen.
last edited: 3/14/07 10:18:59 AM”

“No it doesn't. Again, like I said above, look at the RED ARROW in the upper right corner of the chart. The current level is WAY above the end of the blue line.

To make it even clearer, here's another chart that includes the most recent data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
last edited: 3/14/07 10:24:51 AM”

“Well it would make sense for me not to look up there, that is way out of whach with any other observations I've seen. And as I said look at temperature in the graph, it is way, way off from other observations.”

“And it makes even more sense now of course when I read the rest of the article where your second graph comes from:

"it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day"

Wow, must of been a lot industry going on before we got here. I wonder who was driving SUVs back then?

Oh and there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere that runaway global warming must have destroyed the planet. So you and I aren't really having this discussion right now.”

“It wouldn't make sense for you to miss it if you had actually read my post above. I took the time to point out where to look. I'm guessing then you didn't read my explanation about the oceans, either, and still think they emit CO2 on a global basis.

If you have seen charts with different temperature data, please post them. But no matter what temps they show they still won't show a global temperature that spiked up higher than at any other time in the last 650K years, that happened to spike up before 150 years ago. World temps are only NOW starting to spike in response to the CO2.”

“We have a glass of water at 8 AM with 3 lead weights in the bottom. You take out 1 at 1 PM, I put in 2 at 8 PM. At midnight the glass of water has 4 lead weights in it. It has "absorbed" more lead overall even though at 1 PM it did loose some. You can't say it is emitting lead when at the end of the day it has one more lead weight in it than it did in the morning.


techntrek, sure we can. The obvious thing missing fron your example is that the concern isn't QTY of retained co2 (isit - or +), the concern is total outout. Where did the led weights go? If you consume the lead weights they are certainly the concern, regardless of the net gain/loss of the glass. Same with the ocean and co2.”

“Oooookay now. So I conclusively refute your ocean theory and your temperature theory and now suddenly you want to move the goal posts back 550 million years?

You are grasping at straws now. Its clear from the very article you lean on for support that the oceans are sucking up more CO2 than they emit at the equator. Its also clear from the charts that the CO2 levels have spiked up way higher than the temperature, which kills that theory, too.”

“Corey, the very article you refer to explains it very clearly. The oceans take up more CO2 than they emit. Period.”

“Lets go over this again tech. The oceans have a saturation point with CO2, this is the balance point. The amount of CO2 that can be held in the oceans is dependent on the density of the oceans. The density is dependent on temperature. A colder ocean is denser and can store more CO2. When the temperature of the oceans rises they can no longer store as much CO2 and MUST release stored CO2 to remain in balance. This is not difficult science to understand.

A sink does not ALWAYS absorb. It only absorbs in relation to other factors.

And lets also forget that both the EPICA and Vostok data that you site are for one spot on the earth. They aren't meant as a representation of either global temps, or CO2 concentrations (hence there being out of range of other observations, now it makes plenty of sense.)”

“once again, net loss/gain is unimportant. What matters is output only.”

“"The oceans take up more CO2 than they emit. Period."

techntrek
10:36:56 AM
3/14/07

tech you are completely misrepresenting what the article says. It states that the total global UPTAKE is 2 billion tons per year, stating this as a relation to the release in ONE PARTICULAR area of ocean. It does not in any way shape or form state anything about the total uptake (absorbtion) in relation to the total release, specifically because the study is in relation to the release in ONE PARTICULAR place.”

“I sent the link to the "Swindle" piece to one of the climate guys at NASA/Goddard.

The reply was as follows:

"A little healthy skepticism is great, but "swindle" is silly. It's
probably true that there has been an unfortunate bandwagon effect
(among both scientists and non-scientists) which is now turning into
global warming political correctness. However, 90% of the evidence
points to anthropogenic global warming.

We should be slapping a large tax on gasoline, but any move to do
that will certainly bring out the "skeptics" and more WSJ opinion
pieces..."”

“Tech, face facts, there have been much, much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in earth's past including more dramatic rises and declines, and yet we're all still here. The only source that could produce such dramatic rises (and declines) is the oceans, and yet you still want to say that the oceans don't emit CO2.

(Again the data that you've produced today is not meant to be a representation of global temperature or CO2 levels, but I see it being used that way on Wiki, so much for Wiki)”

“Output is only half of the equation. Input is the other half and your article is very clear that the ocean input is greater than the output. "The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, whereas colder waters in higher latitudes are sinks of atmospheric CO2."

The very next line of the article?

"In balance, the global oceans annually take up about 2 billion tons of carbon through sea-air exchange of CO2 gas."

In equation form, they are saying:

globalOceanOutput + globalOceanInput = globalOceanGainOrLoss

Your article says the right side of the equation is + 2 billion tons. Now it doesn't give numbers for the left side so I'll make up some, but the exact numbers don't matter.

-20 billion + 22 billion = 2 billion net gain

You can't ignore half of the equation.”

“Let me re-quote this again since you keep skipping over these very important words...

"In balance"

It is NOT talking only about the inputs. Go back and re-read that paragraph again.
last edited: 3/14/07 10:52:31 AM”

“No Tech I can see you are being thrown off by that one sentence, but it is not what the article is stating. The "in balance" is in reference to the decadal data, not in reference to the relationship between uptake and release. A better phrasing would have been "on average." I suppose the author is probably British.
last edited: 3/14/07 10:52:57 AM”

“sorry techntrek, but i think you can and must ignore that half when co2 is being produced *key word* due to solar activity.

what matters is NEW co2 is emmitted (800 yrs later) into the atmosphere.

Think of farts. Create gas in your stomach, what matters to people? What gets emmitted matters. Net gain/loss in your belly is not important.”

“We can argue about CO2 all we want. It still leaves you with one problem.

Solar output is a much better indicator of temperature than CO2 concentration. So which is more likely the cause of warming?

If CO2 drives climate change, then why did the temperature fall for four decades when CO2 steadily increased (and don't try out the "but you said CO2 levels should decrease because of more uptake when it cools", ocean temps lag behind surface temps, so there's no reason for the CO2 to have continued rising due to the previous warming before the cool period)?

Again the question, while atmospheric CO2 rose, the temperature plunged (from the 40s through the 70s) How could this be if CO2 drives climate change? Sure the models explain fluctuations in individual years, but not over decades.

Yet look at solar output, during the time period that the temperature plunged so did solar output, when the temp began to rise again, solar output was rising again.”

“but whatwas the thermal net gain/loss of the sun for that period. we have to look at BOTH sides of the equation.

just teasing you techntrek. =)”

“Lets beat this point in one more time.

CO2 concentration:

When CO2 concentration goes up SOMETIMES the temp rises, and SOMETIMES the temp decreases.

When Solar output goes up, the temp rises, when it goes down temp follows suit.

Which is more likely to drive climate change?”

“Here is an article that demonstrates what I have been saying. The oceans have sucked up 118 billion tons of CO2 in the last 200 years. Thats the total gain.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100401

The temps did not fall in the middle of last century, they have been steadily rising.


I knew you would bring in solar insolation. Here's a chart on that, too. Solar insolation is the very bottom brown line. There is very little correlation between that line and the red line above it, which is temperature. Insolation has gone up and down very predictably while temperatures have had large spikes in them that don't match the solar insolation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
last edited: 3/14/07 11:18:35 AM”

“Here's another discussion about how the oceans take up CO2 every year.

"Each year, the world emits almost 7 billion metric tons of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions. An additional one to two billion metric tons is added through deforestation in the tropics. Of the roughly 8 billion metric tons total involved, the terrestrial biosphere takes up, on average, about 3 billion metric tons per year, and the oceans about 2 billion metric tons per year, leaving on average about 3 billion metric tons per year in the atmosphere."

http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/106s/hofmann0504.htm”

“First off Solar Insolation is used as a tactic to specifically deny what is actually happening. I never stated anything about Solar Insolation being a cause of climate change. Thank you for buying into exactly a ridiculous tactic that human-caused global warming proponents use and KNOW FOR A FACT is not the source of the argument.

The driver is Total solar output. There is a lot that goes on that affects climate change that does not occur at the earth's surface. Solar insolation is only the component of that energy that reaches the surface. So you can put that away right now.


"The temps did not fall in the middle of last century, they have been steadily rising"

This is so absolutely absurd it's hardly worth responding too. Temperatures did fall there is absolutely no denying that. Many of the same articles that you've linked to previously show the temperature dropping from a high in 1940, through the 1970s, and rising again beginning in the early '80s.
last edited: 3/14/07 11:25:55 AM”

“And another:

"Human activities put eight billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year--six billion from fossil fuel burning and another two billion from forest destruction. But monitors show only half that much building up in the planet's atmosphere. The other four billion tons are removed each year by growing vegetation and ocean waters."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/acme.shtml



I could go on but I won't. You are clearly wrong that the oceans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere.



And you gotta be kidding about solar, right? First you say its the problem, now you say it isn't? Solar insolation is the measurement of the solar energy that reaches our biosphere. Most of the infrared energy reaches the ground and oceans and has little affect on the atmosphere. If it did it would be a balmy 80 degrees 5 miles up. Instead, its well below freezing even when the ground temps are over 100F!”

“A perfect example of what I just said above: Two weeks ago there was snow on the ground at my house. The air temps during the day were around 30F, yet the snow was melting where it wasn't shaded by trees.

The reason? The infrared energy was absorbed by the snow and little by the air. If the air had absorbed any appreciable amount of that energy it would have been above freezing, too.”

“No Tech, Solar Insolation is specifically the amount of sunlight that reaches the SURFACE.

specifically -

"The amount of electromagnetic energy (solar radiation) incident on the surface of the earth."”

“Temps go up
shake in ALleGOREical fear
temps go down
have colder beer.”

“Article on that subject. 40% of the energy reaches the ground, 30% is reflected back into space. Leaving 30% for the atmosphere. That 30% is spread out over all 15 or so miles of the atmosphere. The 40% that reaches the ground is absorbed by the paper-thin layer of rock/earth/water that is directly exposed to sunlight.

So you concentrate all that light on a very thin layer of ground and it heats up big time. You spread out an even smaller quantity over many miles of very thin air and you get little heating. When I was working on my pilot's license I remember having to turn the heat on in our plane once we got up to 2000 feet, even when it was hot outside on the ground.

The conclusion? Solar insolation at the earth's surface is the only thing that matters. That's where it is concentrated.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation
last edited: 3/14/07 11:45:53 AM”

“Now, getting back to the first 2 issues...

Do you now see that you were incorrect about the ocean? That it does absorb more CO2 every year than it emits?

And that temps lag CO2, not the other way around? We have modern readings taken in the last 50 years that show this. CO2 is way up and temps are only just starting to rise.”

“techntrek, did you watch Bison's movie?

you can't look at 50 years. check theshow he nked to.

You really should watch that. It changed my view on this 180.”

“Corey, have you paid attention to anything I've posted?

When it comes to refuting your theory that temperature causes CO2 rises, the last 50 years are extremely relevant. We have had modern, accurate instruments all over the world measuring CO2 and temps. And very clearly CO2 levels have been much higher than the temps would dictate, if you were right.”

“I have paid attention, and clearly the show refutes your statement, without question. That's why i asked if yoy watched it. did you?

don;t get angry on me man. It just seems like you keep claiming to 'win' your point, when you;re clearly not.

50 years won't show the bigger picture. There can be a 1:1 for 50 or 100 years, but that's meaningless if you saw the 1000s years trend.

if youdidn't watch, this won;t make sense i'm sure.6”

“Remember my equation?

globalOceanOutput + globalOceanInput = globalOceanGainOrLoss

Here are the actual numbers for the whole ecosystem based on the quote I made at 12:22 above.

3 billion left in the atmosphere + 2 billion sunk into the oceans + 3 billion sunk into plants = 8 billion produced annually by humans



Out of 8 billion tons we produced, 2 billion went into the oceans. I can't make it any clearer.”

“yea, he saw a tv show. therefore, youre wrong”

“GOO plus GOI equals GOGOL

Got it!”

“i'll take it as a no

you're embarassing yourself missing the point

watch the video and come back, you're not looking atthe Bigger picture

you seem to be a closed mind, sad for such a smart chap. ttfn”

“corey = s-rge?”

“wtf?”

“Standard shot when you start knocking their ideas off...no biggie Corey. You are hitting them out of the park....”