What do CO2 and 9/11 have in common?
I have been having a conversation that started about a week ago with some friends on FaceBook, concerning an article that ran on Financial Times web site. It’s behind a paywall, but you can also find it in The Wall Street Journal and at Fox Nation. But I am not really sure that lack of information is purely the problem. Some of the problem is people reading headlines and assuming they mean one thing, then to actually read the content of the article and find it is not as it seems. “U.S. Greenhouse Gases Drop to 15-Year Low” This was clearly a misleading Headline.
Below is the outline of the conversation from FaceBook “Quoted” and my Response.
“WE are not the predominant causers of CO2 in the atmosphere. Human kind and all of what WE produce, filling all of our needs and wants, only counts for less than 2% of the CO2 produced on a global scale. Rain forest decomposition counts for more CO2 than WE could ever even try to produce…so…why don’t we cut all those trees down and use them before they fall over, decay naturally, and release even more CO2? Oh, wait, we already have ignorant jackazzes doing that, releasing long buried viruses from old grove root systems that could, ironically, kill us quicker than “global warming”.”
You are absolutely correct, we are not the predominate producers of CO2. The figure of 2-3% is correct. However, the normal background CO2 cycle is roughly 439 gt. (gigatons) output from land and forest and 332 gt. from ocean output. That is a total of 771 gt. being put into the atmosphere and then 788 gt. is being reclaimed. That shows that 17 gt. is excess being reclaimed. Problem is that as the earth warms the excess being reclaimed will diminish until more CO2 will be entering the atmosphere than being recovered. One saving grace!… There is an 800 year lag of earth warming and CO2 recovery. (i.e.) CO2 recovery lags behind temp increases by 800 years.
Explanation of CO2 lag here: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
But here is the crux of the problem… 2007 IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report found here IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report you can see that the human contribution of CO2 the 2-3% is 29 gt.that means that 12 gt is NOT getting reabsorbed via, Oceans and Forests. This is the 1.5-2.5 ppm. rise we see in Global CO2 content yearly.
Here is a NASA Earth Observatory article showing the graphs of CO2 and temperature correlation going back 400,000 years using Ice Core data and how well the correlation shows us with stark resemblance how well they match up. This data shows that when you factor in the 800 year lag of Temp to CO2 recovery how a normal cycle should look.
Now we know from data from several sources found here Mi Skeptics Dr. Henry Pollack by Eric Knight “The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppm immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppm. The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800,000 years. During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacial.”
Dr. Pollack brought up the CO2 concentration levels as evidence of our involvement changing. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 390 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2010 and rising by about 1.5 to 2 ppm/yr. Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotroph, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. What this means to us is at the current trend of 1.5 to 2 ppm of CO2 increase, by 2040 we could see CO2 levels in the 435 to 450 range, thus increasing the greenhouse effect and in turn increase total global temperature averages.
These Graphs IPCC 2.2 Drivers of Climate Change show the correlation between CO2 and Temperature rise and their associated drivers showing the gradual shift in Temperature starting in the 1850’s (the dawn of the industrial age) and the sharp spike from the 1950’s on when the industrial age was at its peek.
“Chicken “Gore” Little wanted riches made from selling futures in ‘carbon credits’ ( hmm, wonder if any of Gore’s business ventures are all about selling carbon credits…but I digress). CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and is being used as a scape goat in an attempt to transfer wealth. CO2 does not CAUSE global warming…it is a side affect OF a warming planet. In warmer conditions, plant and animal life decays quicker and CO2 levels climb (~gasps in shock~).”
I don’t care about Al Gore, Carbon Credits, Kyoto Protocol or any idiot that uses this issue to either make money or sway a political agenda. However, it is blindingly obvious for whom you listen to or watch on TV. Because, I can stick a fork in it and hear them scream. I know your political leanings and it is just as blindingly obvious. I have NO Political leanings; I do not subscribe to any party; I do not kowtow to anyone or anything, nor will I ever.
As I have shown above, CO2 is part of the natural background environment and has been stable as far back as 800,000 years as shown by the Ice Core data. However, as shown above CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS along with water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons. All these elements are monitored regularly and studied such as Ozone preventing potentially damaging electromagnetic radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface. Again the correlation between the excess CO2 and temperature rise is REAL and well established.
”The EPA has stated that in the past 15 years Greenhouse Gas “EMISSIONS” have dropped, this does not mean that global CO2 content has declined” By the way, this is what you (Eric) said that accounts for the ‘truth’ (from Al’s statement) that CO2 levels do not account for global warming.”
1. I never said TRUTH anywhere in that first post or accounts for anything. All I said was the Article was MISLEADING. They were using a misleading statement to proof the article. NOTE the overall (Global) emissions increased by 7.1%
2. I never stated that CO2 levels do not account for Global warming Al did.
“Fewer greenhouse gases were emitted in 2009 than any year since 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday”. But the agency noted that overall emissions have increased by more than 7.3 percent in the last two decades. The EPA found that greenhouse gases emitted in the United States during 2009 decreased by 6.1 percent as compared to those emitted in 2008. Report here Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009
WE have no control over CO2 levels, except in our immediate areas. Kind of like ants are only affect my property where there are ant hills established. Ants pile all of their waste around the ant hills, as well as excavated dirt/sand. It affects THEIR immediate area, as the ant hill grows…but, overall, ant hills don’t affect my property in general. The ant hills never really take over because, eventually, mother nature sends along a rain storm to ‘change the conditions’ for the ants…which pretty much keeps the ant population in check. This planet is pretty amazing when it comes to checks and balances. The sun heats the planet, unduly, the earth adapts. The sun has a quieter period of active solar flares, the earth adapts. It’s simple.
Well no it is not quite that simple, if you pour through the data and the reports and maybe take a few minutes of your time and actually read or watch a video on how our planet and environment works you would be less likely to make that oversimplification of local effect. And I am not even going to get into the effect of the Sun and the solar cycles because that would be another 3 pages and hours of research.
And yes we do have control over CO2 levels in our environment. We can be active in our local communities, (all of us all over the world) and speak up and push to make changes in our communities and it will spread. The problem is you have already thrown in the towel and kowtowed to your talking heads, this too is blindingly obvious with statement like “WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER CO2 LEVELS” and below “, there is NOTHING you or I can do to change the CO2 levels. There are things you can do that make you FEEL like you’re doing something about it and ‘doing your part’…but you’ll be offset 100 times over by people in China who could give two chits about how many particles of ‘whatever’ are pumped into the air. It’s all politics, now, purely and simply meant to ‘control the herd” This is a defeatist attitude and I will not ever take that kind of attitude.
“And I’m not going to let some ‘rich’ guy talk me out of my hard earned money by selling me, or my country, credits in a BS product that’s basically in the air I breathe. Crap, just because millions of people, world wide, started paying astronomical amounts of money for the original bottle water (Evian…naive, spelled backwards), doesn’t mean I’m going to start willingly pay astronomical amounts of money for the ‘air’ I breathe because some, ex VP, business man made some long, boring infomercial, in order to sell carbon credits, for his company, to the SAME CROWD that originally thought it was fashionable to be able to flash their Evian bottles at the world, thus proving that THEY were elite, informed, and wealthy enough to be able to afford water in a bottle. Damn ridiculous.”
“What you’re missing, Eric, is that ALL of it is political and it sucks because it takes us away from being responsible warders of this (round, not flat) planet with real, unbiased information.”
See above about what I don’t care about…
“We should be taking care of this planet because it’s the right thing to do, not because someone made a movie,”
That is the first correct and real statement you made in this entire post.
What do CO2 and 9/11 have in common?
“or because some rich guys (progressive or not) hired a bunch of scientists, via grants, to skew scientific findings to support a specific outcome.”
Can anyone say CONSPIRACY THEORY? Is it not odd the same people that defend the Bush administration against the goof ball 9/11 conspiracy Theories are so bent on committing the same error when it comes to the Global Warming issue!
The more individuals a conspiracy requires to have engaged in conscious acts of evil, the less likely it is to be real. Secret conspiracies requiring the cooperation of entire races, nations or classes of people are extremely unlikely. To do real harm, conspiracies need to be secret. If a bunch of people band together publicly to do something in the open they are a ‘movement’, not a conspiracy. Here is an excellent article on conspiracy theories and how they get started and the Fallacies attributed to them Idiot Wars.
Here is just a short list of the major players in Global Warming research.
And thousands of other Government research and University research groups, thousands of Climate Scientists and Geophysicists not to mention the 10’s of thousands of potential grad students all working on the same issue around the world and all seem to agree on one single issue… That Global warming is an issue and that human CO2 input is the overwhelming cause.
So if some rich guy (Al Gore) has somehow managed to come up with enough money to pay off this many people, supply grants to 10’s of thousand of Grad Students and Researchers just to skew a couple of Graphs that show up on News Broadcasts to make us think that Global Warming is real then somebody needs their head checked. Remember anything is Possible but what is more Probable or more Likely?
“And why would I be better equipped to answer flat earth questions than you? What, just because I don’t agree with you, I have to be ignorant enough to believe the earth is flat?”
That was a joke J I don’t think for a minute that (fingers X) that anybody I know thinks that the Earth is Flat.
“Again, there is NOTHING you or I can do to change the CO2 levels. There are things you can do that make you FEEL like you’re doing something about it and ‘doing your part’…but you’ll be offset 100 times over by people in China who could give two chits about how many particles of ‘whatever’ are pumped into the air. It’s all politics, now, purely and simply meant to ‘control the herd’. I find it amazing that you can figure I would have to get my information from Beck or Jones, yet you constantly list the talking points of others. I’m supposedly the flat earther because I believe the sun has more to do with our CO2 levels than we do. By the way, that’s a political trick. “If you can’t get someone to agree with you, try to make them seem stupid so you can set yourself up as being smarter.”
Actually there are a number of things we can do to change the mindset and the effects of Global warming. HERE National Geographic HERE NASA Earth Observatory AND HERE Common Dreams. And we need to keep pressure on countries that are not complying. Problems that affect this issue are Economic, sociological, and political and are all important factors in planning for the future.