CDZ avoiding climate catastrophe : paying attention to our methane output should be of bigger concern to us, i and quite a few others think

[flacaltenn]

Sounds lovely, however our greenhouse gas reality is well explained here and neatly summed up:

Promote sustainability or continue shoving your head in the sand with a vengeance. It's always tempting to just say "To each their own" or "Can't we all just get along?" but the choice is clearly a deeply moral one in this case.

This doesn't change anything I said about the POWER of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASING LOGARITHMICALLY with atmos concentration. Man's contribution to the yearly SOURCING of CO2 cycle in 5%, nature's is 95%..

Circa 2005, the estimate was that the natural carbon sinks were absorbing 1/2 of man's contribution. Which about jives with rate of rise of atmos conc.

But here's the fuzzy part. 2.5% is probably SMALLER than our uncertainties on ESTIMATING land and ocean sink rates. OR the limits of their capacities. And for certain, declining sea ice for example -- OPENS UP MASSIVE ocean CO2 sinking capabilites greater than planting trees in all that un-iced area.

We could be LOSING land CO2 sinking for a variety of human effects other than CO2. Unless you REFINE our educated guesses on the NATURAL sources and sinks and how THEY are changing -- you might just get lazy and attribute it ALL SOLELY to man's 5% of the annual CO2 cycle.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In some cases maybe

But as much as libs fear global warming, nuclear power scares the shit out of them too

They tend to carry around a lot of personal hangups

Green Is the Color of Snot

They are desperately lonely weirdo misfits. Joining a group of other Nature Boy freaks makes them feel they belong to something bigger than themselves. Bigger than the whole rest of mankind, too. The illusion the eco-bosses offer, of being superior to prosperity-creating industrial development, gives these losers the illusion of becoming winners once their schemes pay off by getting rid of the "deplorables."

 

[Grumblenuts]

This doesn't change anything I said about the POWER of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASING LOGARITHMICALLY with atmos concentration.

Well that shouting certainly does nothing to change the profound lack of compelling evidence you've presented so far backing said proclamations. What sort of decrease have you REALLY BEEN IMAGINING exactly anyway -- e^(-3), (-2), or what?

Unless you REFINE our educated guesses on the NATURAL sources and sinks and how THEY are changing -- you might just get lazy and attribute it ALL SOLELY to man's 5% of the annual CO2 cycle.

No, it's not all up to me personally, but thanks for the concern and flattery. Meanwhile, as my source indicated, breathing in a 5% concentration of anthrax is still likely to kill someone, even provided aggressive medical treatment. Whether or not 5% more would kill them twice as fast is just missing the point -- seemingly deliberately.

 

[DudleySmith]

you'll need to prove that argument with independent source data.

ah no, it's you con artists who need to prove your rubbish, and you can't.

 

[fncceo]

Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is critical to ending the climate crisis.

Or...

 

[Captain Caveman]

The answer from the climate nuts is, "Tax beef to reduce the number of farting cattle". Well cupcakes, the ones you keep for milk and cream still fart and all ruminants fart methane. So you will have to shoot some 200 species. Way to go loons

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sounds lovely, however our greenhouse gas reality is well explained here and neatly summed up:

Promote sustainability or continue shoving your head in the sand with a vengeance. It's always tempting to just say "To each their own" or "Can't we all just get along?" but the choice is clearly a deeply moral one in this case.

You do know that our atmosphere acts as a DAMPENER to CO2, don't you? The AGW idiots can't understand why it is not acting as an enhancer. They forget that increased water in our atmosphere removes CO2 from the air rapidly and deposits in the oceans. That increased water also reduces solar input to the oceans through cloud formation. The reaction to increased temperature is 5 times more powerful a cooling mechanism than an enhancer. This is why we have seen just 0.6 deg C rise when CO2's log shows we should be seeing 1.1 deg C from CO2 alone. Every Global Circulation Model overstates warming by, at minimum, a factor of five.

 

[jc456]

ah no, it's you con artists who need to prove your rubbish, and you can't.

and they don't have to use an independent resource. It's factually hilarious.

 

[jc456]

You do know that our atmosphere acts as a DAMPENER to CO2, don't you? The AGW idiots can't understand why it is not acting as an enhancer. They forget that increased water in our atmosphere removes CO2 from the air rapidly and deposits in the oceans. That increased water also reduces solar input to the oceans through cloud formation. The reaction to increased temperature is 5 times more powerful a cooling mechanism than an enhancer. This is why we have seen just 0.6 deg C rise when CO2's log shows we should be seeing 1.1 deg C from CO2 alone. Every Global Circulation Model overstates warming by, at minimum, a factor of five.

Billy, they can't even read that CO2 follows temperature. Exactly from the point you just made.

 

[justoffal]

Let me open your "horizon" on this a bit.. Gas and oil seepage goes on DAILY in huge amounts anywhere that there are HCarbon deposits residing naturally. The Gulf of Mexico is totally laced with areas of methane seepage. Some of reported volume flows would probably cancel out the rarer pipeline issues if you realize that these have been going on for CENTURIES, virtually 24/7...

Here's one link.. You'll find numbers to compare on other sites..

Gulf of Mexico 2012: Background: Gas Seep Exploration: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research

This is similar to the FACT that there is a CO2 cycle as well that is TOTALLY dominated by NATURE -- not man.. Man's discharge of CO2 is only 5% of what NATURE puts up into the atmosphere every year.. Nature also SINKS all of its emissions PLUS almost a half of what man puts up into the land and the seas..

Additionally there are numerous on deceived volcano ranges that discharge CO2 which then becomes a dissolved gas in the seawater.
The ones we know about are very prolific and they are bound to be many that we don't since our exploration of the seafloor beyond 4 miles deep is extremely sparse. The volcanic CO2 comes with an ion maca that makes it resemble man-made CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion such as in power plants. Et voila! A torpedo goes into the boat carrying the ion marker claim that seeks to differentiate between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.

Jo

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The volcanic CO2 comes with an ion maca that makes it resemble man-made CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion such as in power plants.

Isotope, not ion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well that shouting certainly does nothing to change the profound lack of compelling evidence you've presented so far backing said proclamations. What sort of decrease have you REALLY BEEN IMAGINING exactly anyway -- e^(-3), (-2), or what?

I gave you the math already. GW warming scientists speak in "doubling" of CO2 as a marker. It's an exponential power of 2 DECREASE in surface heating for each doubling. OR to put it another way -- for every NEW 1.1DegC in surf temp -- you need TWICE that amount of NEW atmos CO2. Go check my work for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd doubling. Here's a picture even.. LOL..

BTW -- although I like you a lot -- GrumbleNuts is a moniker that saves me from having to assign you a cartoon nickname -- like Bullwinkle or something.

No, it's not all up to me personally, but thanks for the concern and flattery. Meanwhile, as my source indicated, breathing in a 5% concentration of anthrax is still likely to kill someone, even provided aggressive medical treatment. Whether or not 5% more would kill them twice as fast is just missing the point -- seemingly deliberately.

Fascinating analogy -- since what we BREATHE OUT in CO2 is about 8 times atmos conc and it kills NOBODY without a plastic bag over their heads.

Out of ALL the modeling and all the adjunct CATASTROPHIC theories of "accelerated warming" and "trigger temps" that give CO2 SUPERPOWERS BEYOND what it can actually do --

The simple calculation in any atmos physics book about surface warming vs CO2 conc is the BETTER MATCH to every bit of empirical evidence we have. The simple ass number GMAST (Global Mean Average Surface Temp) in your lifetime has been about 0.6DegC. Assuming that Grumblenuts has lived many moons. LOL.. Since the Industrial Revolution -- about 1.2 DegC (measured in various accuracies thru the ages)..

And we have NOT DOUBLED the atmos conc ONCE since the Ind. Revol. AND empirically have NOT SEEN any evidence for all those accelerations and doomsday triggers that make folk like YOU think that Global Warming is our LARGEST existential threat.

Our largest threat is really all those 30 yr old predictions of modeling doom that haven't panned out.. That's the "science" that's driving the international feeding frenzy on global wealth redistribution and energy policies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Extra credit question. Given the temp vs CO2 curve I placed above, what shape is the CO2 increase curve to get a LINEAR increase in surface temp over time? Describe the order of that same curve to get an EXPONENTIAL increase in surface temp over time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Extra credit question. Given the temp vs CO2 curve I placed above, what shape is the CO2 increase curve to get a LINEAR increase in surface temp over time? Describe the order of that same curve to get an EXPONENTIAL increase in surface temp over time.

It's not going to happen... The logarithmic decrease in effect will never allow this to happen...

Let me qualify that it can happen if our CO2 output increases to 100 times what it is today and we soar to over 5,000ppm in the next hundred years... Like I said, it isn't going to happen.

 

[jc456]

I gave you the math already. GW warming scientists speak in "doubling" of CO2 as a marker. It's an exponential power of 2 DECREASE in surface heating for each doubling. OR to put it another way -- for every NEW 1.1DegC in surf temp -- you need TWICE that amount of NEW atmos CO2. Go check my work for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd doubling. Here's a picture even.. LOL..

BTW -- although I like you a lot -- GrumbleNuts is a moniker that saves me from having to assign you a cartoon nickname -- like Bullwinkle or something.


Fascinating analogy -- since what we BREATHE OUT in CO2 is about 8 times atmos conc and it kills NOBODY without a plastic bag over their heads.

Out of ALL the modeling and all the adjunct CATASTROPHIC theories of "accelerated warming" and "trigger temps" that give CO2 SUPERPOWERS BEYOND what it can actually do --

The simple calculation in any atmos physics book about surface warming vs CO2 conc is the BETTER MATCH to every bit of empirical evidence we have. The simple ass number GMAST (Global Mean Average Surface Temp) in your lifetime has been about 0.6DegC. Assuming that Grumblenuts has lived many moons. LOL.. Since the Industrial Revolution -- about 1.2 DegC (measured in various accuracies thru the ages)..

And we have NOT DOUBLED the atmos conc ONCE since the Ind. Revol. AND empirically have NOT SEEN any evidence for all those accelerations and doomsday triggers that make folk like YOU think that Global Warming is our LARGEST existential threat.

Our largest threat is really all those 30 yr old predictions of modeling doom that haven't panned out.. That's the "science" that's driving the international feeding frenzy on global wealth redistribution and energy policies.

Perhaps he could post a list of climate predictions that have come true? Just saying . Well done btw!

 

[BackAgain]

Methane emanates from bull$#’^. Ergo, the OP might be contributing more to global warmerererering than all the CO2 from the mouths of Democrat politicians.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not going to happen... The logarithmic decrease in effect will never allow this to happen...

Let me qualify that it can happen if our CO2 output increases to 100 times what it is today and we soar to over 5,000ppm in the next hundred years... Like I said, it isn't going to happen.

View attachment 573075

But that chart only goes to 600ppm. Considering we're at 440 now -- that could be year 2100 -- assuming the worse emissions models.

There ARE other variables. If there weren't -- it wouldn't be complicated as a "whole earth" thermo model should be. Like I said, the NATURAL sources and sinks probably aren't constant. And man plays a role in THAT. We COULD have a bigger crisis in terms of not being anywhere near accurate in our estimates of those.

For instance, increased surface runoff from population density could warm the oceans faster and perhaps more than back-radiated IRed from the GHouse. And the ability of the oceans to sink CO2 (about 50% of the available natural sinks) depends highly on cool surface waters.

Increased farming could degrade the land sinks as well. Man HAS an impact on this. In fact, I believe that just urban density could inhibit the release the ground heat -- increasing the heat storage of the land.

It would be a shame to be chasing CO2 as the SOLE culprit for SOME PERCENTAGE of the observed warming and find that we focused on POWER flow calculations and not ENERGY flow considerations.

Because GW Warming science really just began (had the adequate tools to BE a science) in the past 50 years or so, and the focus has been on POWER balance and NOT energy balance, And even the famous Trenberth "Heat energy Balance" diagram calculations totally left out the storage sources and sinks -- making it a power calculation and not a real energy balance exercise.

 

[flacaltenn]

Additionally there are numerous on deceived volcano ranges that discharge CO2 which then becomes a dissolved gas in the seawater.
The ones we know about are very prolific and they are bound to be many that we don't since our exploration of the seafloor beyond 4 miles deep is extremely sparse. The volcanic CO2 comes with an ion maca that makes it resemble man-made CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion such as in power plants. Et voila! A torpedo goes into the boat carrying the ion marker claim that seeks to differentiate between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.

Jo

Yup. "Old carbon" is old carbon. Whether it comes from coal or volcanic emissions. We're in a pretty deep lull on volcanic emissions in our era, but natural methane seeps are pretty active in most of the oceans and a LOT of the land where there are hydrocarb reserves. That's the reason you can light some small lakes on fire in the US (or your tap water). LOL..

The volcanic emissions we NEED to be worried about are the active fissures under Antarctic Ice Sheet. Which we JUST DISCOVERED (circa 2012) are the most likely reason that sea coast ice sheet is melting. NOT from a fraction of a degree increase in surface temp from CO2.

Would be a shame if we drowned from volcanic melting of Antarctica in a relatively SHORT of period while we exhaused ourselves from CO2 mitigation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I gave you the math already. GW warming scientists speak in "doubling" of CO2 as a marker. It's an exponential power of 2 DECREASE in surface heating for each doubling. OR to put it another way -- for every NEW 1.1DegC in surf temp -- you need TWICE that amount of NEW atmos CO2. Go check my work for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd doubling. Here's a picture even.. LOL..

LOL indeed. Sorry, but those concoctions by admitted deniers like Clive Best still fail to impress. For "Extra credit" though or just a genuine clue, try stepping away from all that silliness you're drowning in and take a fresh glance at some reality for a change. <-- "The Saturation Fallacy"

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL indeed. Sorry, but those concoctions by admitted deniers like Clive Best still fail to impress. For "Extra credit" though or just a genuine clue, try stepping away from all that silliness you're drowning in and take a fresh glance at some reality for a change. <-- "The Saturation Fallacy"

Right. Go back a couple centuries before SATELLITES and invoke Arhenius and the son of Angstrom and talk about eating M&Ms off a conveyor belt. Fascinating stuff, but BEFORE satellites, we had a VERY hard time even measuring absorption of solar radiance OR the relative POWER of different solar spectral bands at top of atmos.

Have no idea where that is going or why I'm reading "By the Light of the Silvery Moon" for my Atmos Physics education, but I'll TRY AGAIN in the morning,.