Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Dante, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming. :cool:

    We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."

    "Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."


    Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions

    An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty — much greater than had been known.
    Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com


    The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming


    The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
    The warm-up – The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,  UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

    Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
    But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.


    Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,822
    Thanks Received:
    4,343
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,793
    Blame the Jews? The federal government funds hundreds of (taxpayer) grants to promote the concept of global warming and the Koch brothers become the target for Media Matters bigotry because they throw a couple of bucks to a scientist who doesn't agree with the prevailing viewpoint?
     
  3. earthmuffin
    Offline

    earthmuffin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +8
    I have a hard time taking climate change deniers seriously. Usually, the things they say do nothing except prove they know nothing about how climate change works. And if they aren't spouting false "common sense", they're pushing studies and scientists that are few and far between, and usually have sketchy financial links to oil companies and the like.

    Climate change is not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is committed by those profiting from fossil fuel usage who will do absolutely anything to keep people believing that there's plenty of oil, coal and gas for everyone forever, and using it has no detrimental effects.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Especially when they keep changing tactics.

    then there is this gem: Speaking recently on MSNBC, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) underscored what has fueled much of the skepticism aimed at climate science: "I thought it must be true," he said, "until I found out what it cost." It's true that mitigation and adaptation will be costly. But inaction could carry even higher costs. Economists Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton calculated that putting off adaptation and mitigation efforts could cost the United States 1.36% of its gross domestic product by 2025, and 1.84% by 2100.

    It must be true until a fiscal conservative finds out what it would cost? If that isn't nuts, nothing is.
     
  5. earthmuffin
    Offline

    earthmuffin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +8
    So anything that has a high price tag is indicative of a conspiracy? No wonder so many people see conspiracies everywhere...
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,673
    i.e. It's cheaper to buy off a senator to be your flack! :cool:
     
  7. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,110
    Thanks Received:
    4,668
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,385
    Oh I definately believe we should pursue the science on climate change but not with the current highly politicized structure and agenda.. As the mission statement of the IPCC says -- they are chartered to find MAN-MADE contributions to the warming. NOT --- to openly and honestly investigate the climate and ALL forcings and theories..

    We've only had sophisticated satellite observations for about 25 years. That's what it takes to study the complexity of atmospheric, solar, and climate science. And you've got to observe over a couple decades from space to even get your scientific bearings on the subject.

    So evidentally, most likely we'll find that the man-made contributions have been GROSSLY OVERestimated and the natural causes have been GROSSLY UNDERestimated.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Well, for thousands of years, the CO2 level has been around 280. But starting with the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere started rising. And as we burned more and more fossil fuels, we saw a more rapid increase in the CO2.

    We know from the records of companies how much fossil fuels we are burning, we know how much CO2 that burning puts into the atmosphere.

    Far from being overestimated, we know very well the amount that we have put into the atmosphere. You are simply obfuscating.


    How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,110
    Thanks Received:
    4,668
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,385
    The LA Times piece on methane has me wondering if anyone at the LA Times UNDERSTOOD the concept of the study...

    Let's put some numbers to the claims that man was "significantly" contributing to methane emissions back in the first millenium..

    TODAY --- 270Mtonnes methane ------------- Natural
    330Mtonnes methane ------------ Anthropogenic
    (Note 1) Man gets charged with 115Mtonne just from domestic cattle)
    (Note 2) Termites contribute 20Mtonne/yr to the "natural")

    This yields a +20Mtonne IMBALANCE with natural sinks per year.. And thus that is the amount that forms a reserve of Methane as GHG.

    Now the study behind that LA Times article states that man is now contributing 70 times MORE methane/yr. Taking that imprecise statement further -- we would estimate that the anthro contribution circa 200AD might be in the range of 5Mtonne/yr..

    If NATURAL emissions stayed the same the TOTAL human contribution to methane back then would only be less than 2%.

    Assuming that the population of TERMITES has remained the same -- that would make man-made Methane just 25% of ONE insect specie. But also, you have to wonder about that HUMONGEOUS "charge--off" for cattle that man gets charged with.. With LARGE herds of buffalo roaming the plains and far less wildlife displaced by human development --- my wager is that NATURE needs to pick a BIGGER METHANE bill in 100AD by far. And there is no indication that any NATURAL sources of methane are considerably less now than today (unless you honestly INCREASE ancient natural methane numbers with the larger wild herds and smaller domesticated herds).. So man's contribution to methane back in those days DIDN'T EVEN MATTER to GHG warming (if that exists) because the small imbalance we see today DIDN'T EXIST back in those days -- unless natural emissions were far higher...

    Bottom line -- man contributed SQUAT to methane as a GHG warming agent in those early days of civilization.. The AUTHORS know this -- but hang on the "factoid" that they found man contributing 20 to 30% of the PYROGENIC emissions of methane. Meaning man burning stuff on purpose versus nature burning it. I even doubt this little factoid, but IF IT IS TRUE --- that amount (as I showed above) is so trivial as to not matter in the GHG calculations...

    STILL -- they felt compelled "TO MARKET" their study, by taking a random jab at Anthropogenic sourcing of methane and IMPLY that some of the earliest warming was indeed again (surprise!!!) the fault of man.. That's how you elevate a vanilla science factoid into the pages of the LA TImes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Simple facts. We started at 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Now we have 393 ppm in the atmosphere. A rise from 180 ppm to 280 ppm created the present interglacial period. Now we have increased that amount by over 100 ppm in just 120 years.

    For the last 400,000 years the methane levels in the atmosphere have varied from 400 ppb to 800 ppb. Today they are near 1800 ppb. Now it is often stated that methane is 20 to 25 times as effective GHG as CO2. But that number is the average effect over a period of 100 years. Normally, methane oxidizes to CO2 and H2O in about 15 years. The initial effect of Methane is actually between 60 and 100 times as effective as CO2.

    Trends in Atmospheric Methane

    And then there are the manmade GHGs. Although a very tiny fraction of the overall GHGs, some of them are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

    Overall, the net effect is that we are already over the limit of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 that many scientists state will lead to inevitable consequences, such as melting of the permafrost and release of the vast amounts of CO2 and CH4 there.

    Going to be an interesting ride, folks.
     

Share This Page