Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If it was high before, and it went down, and now it's going back up, does this mean... no.. Wait, Does this mean It's just the Earths Cycle?
It could be the earth's cycle, if there weren't other confounding factors to consider, like the increase in GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial revolution.
to westwall +/or Old Rocks-
science used to state that CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for less than a decade. but now it is claimed that CO2 stays around for 50-to-hundreds of years. was there some spectacular new research that overturned the 20th century research?
to westwall +/or Old Rocks-
science used to state that CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for less than a decade. but now it is claimed that CO2 stays around for 50-to-hundreds of years. was there some spectacular new research that overturned the 20th century research?
to westwall +/or Old Rocks-
science used to state that CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for less than a decade. but now it is claimed that CO2 stays around for 50-to-hundreds of years. was there some spectacular new research that overturned the 20th century research?
True, but lets say that the natural ability of the oceans at removing the co2 is quite slow and while what ever that is adding it to the atmosphere is being replaced by co2 moving out of the oceans...Oceans don't act as a one way sink, but they take in co2, but also co2 goes back into the Atmosphere from them...So overall the "theory" behind hundreds of years is the imbalance of co2, which pretty much means that there is a ever increasing percentage of co2 in the Atmosphere as there was before and so on.
Everything is a cycle and if you add more into one part of the cycle it don't always mean the whole cycle becomes faster at what it does, so you get a imbalance.
One more thing to add: warmer oceans hold much less co2 then colder oceans, so they release the co2 at a faster rate then they other wise would do if they where colder. The Atlantic for April-June was the hottest ever recorded in human record; yes beating 2005...That will help increase the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.
One more thing to add: warmer oceans hold much less co2 then colder oceans, so they release the co2 at a faster rate then they other wise would do if they where colder. The Atlantic for April-June was the hottest ever recorded in human record; yes beating 2005...That will help increase the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.
hmmm.... does that mean the linear increase of temps since the Little Ice Age could be the source of much of the increase in atmospheric CO2? released by the oceans in response to increased temperature?
I take it that some of you might actually understand that they only started keeping records on sea ice about 35 years ago...........
One more thing to add: warmer oceans hold much less co2 then colder oceans, so they release the co2 at a faster rate then they other wise would do if they where colder. The Atlantic for April-June was the hottest ever recorded in human record; yes beating 2005...That will help increase the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.
hmmm.... does that mean the linear increase of temps since the Little Ice Age could be the source of much of the increase in atmospheric CO2? released by the oceans in response to increased temperature?
Yes., within other interglacial periods of the last 500,000 years do have a increase in co2 with them as the worlds warm and the oceans release co2. But only of 300-320 from 210-250 within the peaks of the ice ages to the peak of the interglacial periods.
For your other question above: Yes, but 50/1 is the ability as a whole to take up co2. But with a warming ocean that can take up less and releases a higher percentage of that.. Wouldn't it mean more Atmospheric co2. Remember the extra co2 we're adding is not a big number and so most of the co2 is in fact being removed, but what we're seeing as a increase is just the imbalance.
The lowest ever. lol
You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location? That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time? Your crap stinks dude. Just saying.
The lowest ever. lol
You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location? That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time? Your crap stinks dude. Just saying.
Changing the subject and personal insults.
Just what I expect from someone with no facts to back up their opinions.
Why don't you just admit you are wrong?
hmmm.... does that mean the linear increase of temps since the Little Ice Age could be the source of much of the increase in atmospheric CO2? released by the oceans in response to increased temperature?
Yes., within other interglacial periods of the last 500,000 years do have a increase in co2 with them as the worlds warm and the oceans release co2. But only of 300-320 from 210-250 within the peaks of the ice ages to the peak of the interglacial periods.
For your other question above: Yes, but 50/1 is the ability as a whole to take up co2. But with a warming ocean that can take up less and releases a higher percentage of that.. Wouldn't it mean more Atmospheric co2. Remember the extra co2 we're adding is not a big number and so most of the co2 is in fact being removed, but what we're seeing as a increase is just the imbalance.
Before the IPCC announced that atm CO2 remained for ~100 years, research said atm CO2 was recycled every ~10 years. If the shorter term is correct that doesn't leave much time for an imbalance to accumulate.
As far as ice cores to approximate temps and CO2 level- I think they are useful but it is very problematic to compare them to actual direct measurements. The treering data used in preparing the Hockey Stick is a case in point. The proxies were only sensible to the 60's so the later data was discarded, leaving people with the impression that the figures were much more reliable than they are.
The lowest ever. lol
You are apparently unaware that in the millions of years the planet has been here, the north pole wasn't even at the current location? That the ice caps have been totally melted from time to time? Your crap stinks dude. Just saying.
Changing the subject and personal insults.
Just what I expect from someone with no facts to back up their opinions.
Why don't you just admit you are wrong?
Uhhhh because we're not. Read my tag line "He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle was a far smarter than you or I and his admonition still holds today. You have to prove your theory without manipulating data. You can't. Climatologists make incredible predictions about what is going to happen in the future and yet they can't reproduce the weather that occured 10 days ago. You expect a thinking person to accept that kind of crapola?
You're dreaming pal. No matter how much drivel you spout the fact remains that if CO2 were a driving force in global temperature it would allready be much warmer than it is. Thus you fail.
Yes., within other interglacial periods of the last 500,000 years do have a increase in co2 with them as the worlds warm and the oceans release co2. But only of 300-320 from 210-250 within the peaks of the ice ages to the peak of the interglacial periods.
For your other question above: Yes, but 50/1 is the ability as a whole to take up co2. But with a warming ocean that can take up less and releases a higher percentage of that.. Wouldn't it mean more Atmospheric co2. Remember the extra co2 we're adding is not a big number and so most of the co2 is in fact being removed, but what we're seeing as a increase is just the imbalance.
Before the IPCC announced that atm CO2 remained for ~100 years, research said atm CO2 was recycled every ~10 years. If the shorter term is correct that doesn't leave much time for an imbalance to accumulate.
As far as ice cores to approximate temps and CO2 level- I think they are useful but it is very problematic to compare them to actual direct measurements. The treering data used in preparing the Hockey Stick is a case in point. The proxies were only sensible to the 60's so the later data was discarded, leaving people with the impression that the figures were much more reliable than they are.
What I was stating is that you have a level of co2 being absorbed into the oceans, which maybe 50/1 rate, but the imbalance comes from, 1# more being put into the Atmosphere over a short time scale, which adds a good 100 ppm that other wise would be within the earth within oil shale, ect and 2# warming oceans cause this to slow down even more...Which increases our imbalance. Case and point the co2 may not have a very long time within the Atmosphere, but remember the carbon cycle is a "cycle" it's not only gets absorbed, but goes back into the Atmosphere and so as the oceans warm the oceans ability lowers to absorb carbon becomes less and it releases more of it. If the oceans got colder then the opposite would happen...Yes over time this would balance its self out and likely within a hundred or so years if we switched over to things like Nuclear, which has very little co2 output would start going down.
The climate system is not use to 390 ppm at least not the one that we have grown to love.
This shows that only 3 periods of the last 650 thousand years where the only times to get above 300 ppm. What these periods are the interglacial I was talking about above with the oceans ability to hold onto the co2 as they warm becomes less and releases it. I happen to find the increase of co2 very interesting because we're at a very high level that likely no human being has ever seen in the history of man. The fact that the peaks of co2 in the Atmosphere throughout the last million years happen ever warming of some sort is because of this. Co2 yes warms the planet, but it was very likely solar forcing that caused these other periods; not unlike the Holocene that we love now. But co2 also has the ability to warm if there is enough of it too and cause a warmer period then it might otherwise be.
The climate forcing of co2 is quite low when you think about it. Yes it might warm our planet some, but 4-5c like some believe is not going to happen in 90 years. Warming in the last 20 years has been around .14c to .17c per decade, which is pretty slow.
Decade Annual Rate of Increase (Atmospheric CO2)
2000 2009 1.92 ppm
1990 1999 1.52 ppm
1980 1989 1.61 ppm
1970 1979 1.22 ppm
1960 1969 0.86 ppm
So lets say F(x)=1.92(x)+389ppm
So this tells us if things remain the same each year will hit 400 ppm around 5.5 years and we will get to 450ppm around 32 years or 2042...Doubling at 89 years from the 280 ppm in 1800 at 560 ppm, which will be 2099. Of course this is more likely to get to this level much faster as this is increasing in its rate.
So a linear increase would cause doubling by 2099. But the truth is a doubling don't have the effect that the hypers believe because co2 has a far lower warming effect on earth...More like 1-1.5c warming by 2100 for that doubling. Which would be good for plant growth and good for humans. More growable lands within Russia, Canada for one. The forcing is has got to be below 2.5 as far as I can see, which is why warming as been so much slower then they expected it to be. They where thinking 3.5-4.5 like forcing for people like Hansen. Also you have lower solar output too.
I agree with you about the ice cores...
Changing the subject and personal insults.
Just what I expect from someone with no facts to back up their opinions.
Why don't you just admit you are wrong?
Uhhhh because we're not. Read my tag line "He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle was a far smarter than you or I and his admonition still holds today. You have to prove your theory without manipulating data. You can't. Climatologists make incredible predictions about what is going to happen in the future and yet they can't reproduce the weather that occured 10 days ago. You expect a thinking person to accept that kind of crapola?
You're dreaming pal. No matter how much drivel you spout the fact remains that if CO2 were a driving force in global temperature it would allready be much warmer than it is. Thus you fail.
No, you are dreaming.
The earth is heating faster than the scientists expected. It turns out that their estimates were low in terms of how fast it would warm up. And then there are the multiplier effects of a melting pole and the arctic methane bomb. No, the hottest year in recorded history and a melting pole are not "drivel." But your posts are.
