Volcanic Co2

[CrusaderFrank]

It is true that a warmer ocean can hold less co2. It is a cycle that feeds in on its self you see. 1# Man adds more co2 into the Atmosphere 2# the temperatures warm 3# oceans ability to hold co2 decreases=more co2 in Atmosphere.

Lets say in the 1850's the oceans could take 100 percent of the co2 of a normal interglacial period, but today they can only take about 95 percent of whats normal. So you get a 5 percent surplus and that adds every fucking year. It is a cycle. One big fucking circle. During the ice ages the colder oceans holded more co2 with the larger ice sheets sucking up some of the co2=less co2. That is why it went down to 160-180 ppm, but you go into a interglacial period in what you get is the opposite with more co2 260-300 ppm within the Atmosphere. Where can you explain the extra 100 or so ppm? After you look at each interglacial period of the past few million years.

That 100 ppm and why the oceans are not able to hold the co2 within where they always holded it within during the interglacial is the question. The earth has patterns, but we're outside of them.

As we add more co2 into the system and as the oceans become less able of sucking it ot of the Atmosphere. Both man and the oceans lost ability to absorb co2 will increase the rate of increase of the amount of co2 in the Atmosphere.

I thought the oceans were sucking up half (1/2 or 50%) the manmade CO2 output and that why the coral were dying and the oceans were turning into stomach acid?

True. But the 100 percent is of a normal interglacial period. Your right that the oceans suck up 50% on the norm, but as you increase co2 within the Atmosphere and increase the temperature within the oceans they get to the point where they can't take much more co2 and a small amount less of the full percentage doesn't get sucked. So instead it stays and compounds on its self within the Atmosphere.

The weird thing is is why are we higher then any period in the last 5 million years? What is driving the cycle if not for increase of the temperature and the addition of heat into the system. Honestly?

If the land my house is on now wasn't under 2 miles of ice 12,000 years ago, I'd think you'd have a point.

We're in a warming period.

The Glaciers have been receding for 14,000 years, I'm not losing any sleep over it. It might have something to do with that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky? Maybe there's a little more water vapor in the atmosphere?

One thing I can say with absolutely certainty it that changing the chemical composition of Earth atmosphere by adding .0003% by weight of CO2 is NOT the cause.

Here's what happens when you add CO2

"After two years, a cherry tomato plant was 16 feet tall, with 903 tomatoes on it. After six years, the same tomato plant was over 30 feet tall and had produced over 5,000 tomatoes."

That's reality.

Beyond the Physical Realm: Conditions of The Original World Ecology - Archaeology Newsflash No. 128 - Jonathan Gray

 

[westwall]

SkepticalScience.com (a global warming advocacy site) says,

Consumption of vegetation by animals and microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.
Land plants absorb about 440 Gt of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 330 Gt. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance.



So total CO2 budget is 796.4 Gt of which man is responsible for .0342857 percent of the total global CO2 budget. And this is from a warmist site.....

 

[whitehall]

Dr. Gerlach might be a nice guy. He used to work for a subsidiary of Lockheed called Sandia Labs before he went to work for the US Government propaganda administration. (I made up the propaganda administration part but it's close). A good Phd could put any scientific scenario together and make it seem authentic. Here's the way you do it, you establish the first broad assumption as fact and work from the assumption. "CO2 and so-called greenhouse gas is the cause global warming". It's never been proven. Next you pick a narrow point and use scripted data to try to undermine it. Next you leave out gigantic evidence that might undermine your theory such as...In addition to CO2 volcanoes emit immense clouds of hydrogen sulfide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, organic hydrocarbons and volatile heavy metal compounds. The chemical mix of airborne sludge reacts with salt water and fresh water and natural pollutants and produces a continuously changing mix. In other words Gerlach's estimated volcanic statistics might be entirely changed by the time they drift over water and land masses or they might be based on the continuing lavish government grants Gerlach and his comrades enjoy courtesy of US taxpayers.

Whitey, this is a big load of made up crap. Post a link to science, otherwise what you state is is just the yap-yap of an idiot. Fabricated, and false.

I rest my case. Radicals don't think. They pick a theory that closely represents their political views and they support it without having to light up a single brain cell.

 

[Old Rocks]

SkepticalScience.com (a global warming advocacy site) says,

Consumption of vegetation by animals and microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.
Land plants absorb about 440 Gt of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 330 Gt. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance.



So total CO2 budget is 796.4 Gt of which man is responsible for .0342857 percent of the total global CO2 budget. And this is from a warmist site.....

Why Walleyes, that is the snazziest peice of lying I have seen in a long time.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. 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.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

The increase of 100 ppm of CO2 is from man. It is outside the normal carbon cycle. That has been proven, not only by the records of the amount of fossil fuels that we have burned, but by the isotopic composition of the present CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Gerlach might be a nice guy. He used to work for a subsidiary of Lockheed called Sandia Labs before he went to work for the US Government propaganda administration. (I made up the propaganda administration part but it's close). A good Phd could put any scientific scenario together and make it seem authentic. Here's the way you do it, you establish the first broad assumption as fact and work from the assumption. "CO2 and so-called greenhouse gas is the cause global warming". It's never been proven. Next you pick a narrow point and use scripted data to try to undermine it. Next you leave out gigantic evidence that might undermine your theory such as...In addition to CO2 volcanoes emit immense clouds of hydrogen sulfide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, organic hydrocarbons and volatile heavy metal compounds. The chemical mix of airborne sludge reacts with salt water and fresh water and natural pollutants and produces a continuously changing mix. In other words Gerlach's estimated volcanic statistics might be entirely changed by the time they drift over water and land masses or they might be based on the continuing lavish government grants Gerlach and his comrades enjoy courtesy of US taxpayers.

Whitey, this is a big load of made up crap. Post a link to science, otherwise what you state is is just the yap-yap of an idiot. Fabricated, and false.

I rest my case. Radicals don't think. They pick a theory that closely represents their political views and they support it without having to light up a single brain cell.

Fucking dumb, Whitey, fucking dumb. What you are talking about is a scientific subject. Therefore, the intelligent thing to do would be to see what the scientists say. Scientists like those at the USGS.

As far as your claims of fraud on the part of scientists, that is the standard refuge of ignoramouses.

 

[Old Rocks]

I thought the oceans were sucking up half (1/2 or 50%) the manmade CO2 output and that why the coral were dying and the oceans were turning into stomach acid?

True. But the 100 percent is of a normal interglacial period. Your right that the oceans suck up 50% on the norm, but as you increase co2 within the Atmosphere and increase the temperature within the oceans they get to the point where they can't take much more co2 and a small amount less of the full percentage doesn't get sucked. So instead it stays and compounds on its self within the Atmosphere.

The weird thing is is why are we higher then any period in the last 5 million years? What is driving the cycle if not for increase of the temperature and the addition of heat into the system. Honestly?

If the land my house is on now wasn't under 2 miles of ice 12,000 years ago, I'd think you'd have a point.

We're in a warming period.

The Glaciers have been receding for 14,000 years, I'm not losing any sleep over it. It might have something to do with that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky? Maybe there's a little more water vapor in the atmosphere?

One thing I can say with absolutely certainty it that changing the chemical composition of Earth atmosphere by adding .0003% by weight of CO2 is NOT the cause.

Here's what happens when you add CO2

"After two years, a cherry tomato plant was 16 feet tall, with 903 tomatoes on it. After six years, the same tomato plant was over 30 feet tall and had produced over 5,000 tomatoes."

That's reality.

Beyond the Physical Realm: Conditions of The Original World Ecology - Archaeology Newsflash No. 128 - Jonathan Gray

Well, Franky boy, I might have known that this is what you would believe is a science site.



Beyond the Physical Realm: Conditions of The Original World Ecology - Archaeology Newsflash No. 128 - Jonathan Gray

Beyond the Physical Realm
Welcome to my blog! Here I will be sharing my experience working within and for the dark side, and disclosing how the evil which we see manifesting in the physical 'New World Order' has it's origins, not in the hearts and minds of evil men on earth, but rather far beyond the physical realm, under the direction of the Spiritual Heirarchy, from whose deception I have been saved by the Grace and Love of God. ...crhamlett





Thursday, December 11, 2008Conditions of The Original World Ecology - Archaeology Newsflash No. 128 - Jonathan Gray

A TOMATO PLANT AS HIGH AS A 3-STORY BUILDING? That's right!
Japanese physicist Dr. Kei Mori exposed plant life to two of the conditions of the original world ecology - before the Great Flood.

He grew tomato plants under a plastic dome which filtered the ultraviolet rays; and he increased the carbon-dioxide.

After two years, a cherry tomato plant was 16 feet tall, with 903 tomatoes on it. After six years, the same tomato plant was over 30 feet tall and had produced over 5,000 tomatoes

 

[whitehall]

Whitey, this is a big load of made up crap. Post a link to science, otherwise what you state is is just the yap-yap of an idiot. Fabricated, and false.

I rest my case. Radicals don't think. They pick a theory that closely represents their political views and they support it without having to light up a single brain cell.

Fucking dumb, Whitey, fucking dumb. What you are talking about is a scientific subject. Therefore, the intelligent thing to do would be to see what the scientists say. Scientists like those at the USGS.

As far as your claims of fraud on the part of scientists, that is the standard refuge of ignoramouses.

I rest my case again. Trust the "scientists" as the standard and don't dare to question data or logic? Yeah right. Obama appointed a communist to his "green jobs" board who didn't have any qualifications other than leading an arson and looting rampage. That's why we are in a economic crisis exacerbated by left wing environmental extremists.

 

[Old Rocks]

I rest my case. Radicals don't think. They pick a theory that closely represents their political views and they support it without having to light up a single brain cell.

Fucking dumb, Whitey, fucking dumb. What you are talking about is a scientific subject. Therefore, the intelligent thing to do would be to see what the scientists say. Scientists like those at the USGS.

As far as your claims of fraud on the part of scientists, that is the standard refuge of ignoramouses.

I rest my case again. Trust the "scientists" as the standard and don't dare to question data or logic? Yeah right. Obama appointed a communist to his "green jobs" board who didn't have any qualifications other than leading an arson and looting rampage. That's why we are in a economic crisis exacerbated by left wing environmental extremists.

LOL. When challenged by logic, start yelling 'Commie, Commie', at the top of your voice. Real sign of an intelligent person, correct

 

[westwall]

Fucking dumb, Whitey, fucking dumb. What you are talking about is a scientific subject. Therefore, the intelligent thing to do would be to see what the scientists say. Scientists like those at the USGS.

As far as your claims of fraud on the part of scientists, that is the standard refuge of ignoramouses.

I rest my case again. Trust the "scientists" as the standard and don't dare to question data or logic? Yeah right. Obama appointed a communist to his "green jobs" board who didn't have any qualifications other than leading an arson and looting rampage. That's why we are in a economic crisis exacerbated by left wing environmental extremists.

LOL. When challenged by logic, start yelling 'Commie, Commie', at the top of your voice. Real sign of an intelligent person, correct

This is your kind of scientist....


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Contacts:
Christopher Horner, [email protected]
Paul Chesser, [email protected]

American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen – specifically records that pertain to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.

ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen’s outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years. This money comes in addition to – and, more troubling from an ethics and legal perspective, is all related to – his taxpayer-funded employment. Dr. Hansen’s outside employment commenced when he increased his “global warming” activism from his perch at NASA.

On January 19, ATI filed a Freedom of Information Act request (PDF) with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which sought records detailing NASA’s and Hansen’s compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Thus far the agency has denied ATI’s request for Hansen’s Form 17-60s (“Application for permission for outside employment and other activity”), and ATI’s request for records of internal discussions about it.

NASA argues the release of the records would constitute a “clearly unwarranted violation of Hansen’s privacy rights,” and says ATI’s lengthy explanation of Dr. Hansen’s outside work “had not made the requisite showing that the documents requested would contribute to the public’s understanding of the activities of the Government, or how it would shed light on NASA’s performance of its statutory duties.”

ATI maintains that NASA’s compliance with ethics laws, and a senior employee’s outside revenue-generating activities, are patently of public interest, as is clear in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Dr. Hansen’s position requires him to file vastly more detailed Public Financial Disclosure filings (Form SF 278), which are made available to the public on request.

Dr. Hansen engages in high-profile public advocacy with regard to global warming and energy policy, directly trading on his platform as a NASA astronomer to gain interest and attention. This outside employment and other activities related to his work have included: consulting; highly compensated speeches; policy advocacy; a commercial book; advising Al Gore on his movie “An Inconvenient Truth;” and most recently, advising litigants on suing states and the federal government.

Since escalating the “provocative” (in Dr. Hansen’s word) nature of his advocacy in a 2006 “60 Minutes” interview, these outside activities have become extraordinarily lucrative – yielding on average more than a quarter of a million dollars per year in extra income between 2007 and 2010 from outside sources, all based upon the work he is paid by taxpayers to do for NASA.

“Under federal statutes and NASA rules, employees may not privately benefit from their public office,” said Christopher Horner, ATI’s director of litigation. “Outside income must be disclosed, certain activities avoided, and permission must be applied for before engaging in permissible outside employment or activities.

“ATI’s request seeks official documents which, if they exist, would inform the public about NASA’s and Dr. Hansen’s adherence to these ethics rules. Considering the records already obtained and the public record, compliance by NASA and Dr. Hansen is in doubt.”

Dr. Hansen has admitted that lucrative offers of “prizes” and “awards” for his public service began flowing after that “60 Minutes” interview, in which he accused the Bush administration of “censoring” his global warming views. Records show a sudden spike in highly compensated speeches on the subject of his work as well.

NASA has already provided Form 17-60 documents for Dr. Hansen’s subordinate Gavin Schmidt to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Schmidt writes for and edits the climate alarmism blog RealClimate.org, during normal business hours. That Hansen and NASA had not required Schmidt to file Form 17-60 seeking permission for these activities – until NASA was asked about this matter – triggered ATI’s inquiry into whether Hansen, too, was avoiding this requirement. Other records obtained by CEI (and posted on ATI’s Web site) indicate that Dr. Hansen has also used NASA staff for his own commercial activities.

“The President and the Attorney General have made clear their commitment to transparency and a high standard of ethical behavior by government employees,” said Dr. David Schnare, Director of the ATI Environmental Law Center. “NASA needs to clear the air by releasing the documents about Dr. Hansen and about whether he had permission to wear his government hat when engaging in a lucrative effort to sway government policy.”



ATI Law Center Asks Court to Force NASA to Produce Ethics and Outside Employment Records of Dr. James Hansen