Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

[mudwhistle]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

BTW, what actually warms the Earth?


That big yellow ball in the sky. Temperatures on Earth are directly related to Sun spot activity.

 

[orogenicman]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.

 

[mudwhistle]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.

Stop buying the NYT.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The difference between the height of the little ice age and today is around 2c.

The difference between those mile high glaciers over Chicago and looking up at them on staten island is around 8c.

2c in 100 years is a oh shit moment!

Chicken Little lives.

Tell me exactly what will happen. You can't. You can't even say with any certainty that the 2 degree prediction is accurate.

The fact that the GW crowd keeps upping the ante tells me they don't know what's going to happen. But the more they scare you the more you can be controlled.

First of all, we cannot say 'exactly' what will happen. But we can say that it will not be good for a population of over 7 billion humans that depend on a stable climate for food. And that 2 degrees figure is an optimistic one, one that does not consider the feedback effects we are seeing in the Arctic.

All we know for certain is that anything on the Weather Channel is because of AGW, heat, cold, storms, fires, ice, melting ice, all because of AGW, that's all we know for certain

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For those of you who like to quote the IPCC

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.

Read more: World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I have to wonder what else the IPCC is wrong about.

Except that the IPCC report DOES NOT say that "climate scientists confess" global warming is just QUARTER what we thought. What they confess is that the rate of increase in the last 15 years is 1/4 what we thought, and can and has been explained, as has been pointed out in the text of your post, AND in nearly every such thread on this forum.

The Pacific Ocean ate it

 

[Spiderman]

Does it make you comfortable knowing that we can't predict all the effects? If so, why?

Because you people are using dubious predictions to impose controls on millions of people

How does that make you comfortable?

I am neither comfortable or uncomfortable.

The GW scare monger control freaks were wrong about how warm the earth will get.

They won't admit they were wrong or that they don't know how warm the earth will get.

Since they have no idea how warm the earth will get why should we worry about their predictions or use those predictions to drive policy that will cost billions if not trillions and place more controls on people?

Our emissions have dropped significantly and will continue to drop as technology improves. The actual warming as compared to the predictions seems to indicate that we will have far more time to address GHGs than the fear mongers would have us believe. And since we are already reducing our emissions we are already moving in the right direction.

There is no looming disaster.

 

[PredFan]

CO2 follows increased temperatures not the other way around.

The AGW fanatics are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.

At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?

Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?

 

[orogenicman]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.

At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?

Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?

Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.

Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.

 

[daveman]

No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.

No, it will be there about five and a half years.

http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf

Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy


The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests
that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has
been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades
using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly
calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2
remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC,
corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in
the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a
lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with
different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its
residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2,
have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both
the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.

No, it will be there about five and a half years.

http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf

Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy


The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests
that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has
been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades
using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly
calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2
remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC,
corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in
the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a
lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with
different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its
residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2,
have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both
the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
​

^ Denier!

Heretic!

Racist!

 

[daveman]

No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.

No, it will be there about five and a half years.

http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf

Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy


The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests
that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has
been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades
using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly
calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2
remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC,
corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in
the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a
lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with
different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its
residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2,
have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both
the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
​

^ Denier!

Heretic!

Racist!

Yes, that's what they call me when they realize the science simply isn't on their side.

 

[flacaltenn]

By itself, such a decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide should lead to cooling. But the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide took a divergent track.

After a century of cooling, the planet warmed by 0.37 degrees Celsius (0.66 Fahrenheit) during the next 400 years as the ocean absorbed less and less heat. While the resulting temperature spike seems slight, a little heat goes a long way here. Earth has warmed by only 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

Now the heat isn't just hiding in the oceans.. It's getting stuck in the simulations.. Time to CTL-ALT-DEL and run it again...

WTF is with this "as the oceans absorbed less and less heat" biz? Cooler surfaces absorb more CO2. Seems like the feedbacks are always positive with these nutjobs, even when running the simulation in the reverse direction..

If 40% of CO2 disappeared in 20 years ----- what "divergent track" did the heat take???
Any report that uses the "carbon" tag rather than the proper CO2 description is there for propaganda reasons..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Another reason to get away from coal is it causes cancer.

Is that a better reason for you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does AGW cause people to become dim or are dim people drawn to AGW

 

[HelenaHandbag]

At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.

At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?

Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?

Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.

Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.

Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.

On the other hand, when timber is treated as a renewable cash crop, as it is in America and elsewhere, there's no money in deforestation without replanting.

 

[flacaltenn]

Another reason to get away from coal is it causes cancer.

Is that a better reason for you?

Yes Matthew.. I would be thrilled to put efforts into cleaning up REAL emissions.

Before the flu stacks were improved -- coal plants were also pouring TONS of radioactive ash into the atmos.. FAR more radiation from coal emissions than anything from commercial nuclear stations.. The furnaces of these coal plants are still so radioactive, that maintenance workers are metered and limited for exposure..

 

[flacaltenn]

At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?

Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?

Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.

Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.

Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.

On the other hand, when timber is treated as a renewable cash crop, as it is in America and elsewhere, there's no money in deforestation without replanting.

One motivation for clearing those rain forests is that American Beef has gotten so expensive (because of corn prices) that we cannot compete for export. And places like Brazil are filling the vacuum.. IN FACT --- the fast food industry in the US is IMPORTING more and more "rainforest beef" every year..

Gee THANKS enviro-nuts.... ANOTHER unintended consequence of your "plans"??

 

[Abraham3]

Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.

Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.

On the other hand, when timber is treated as a renewable cash crop, as it is in America and elsewhere, there's no money in deforestation without replanting.

One motivation for clearing those rain forests is that American Beef has gotten so expensive (because of corn prices) that we cannot compete for export. And places like Brazil are filling the vacuum.. IN FACT --- the fast food industry in the US is IMPORTING more and more "rainforest beef" every year..

Gee THANKS enviro-nuts.... ANOTHER unintended consequence of your "plans"??

Would you care to explain how US environmentalists are responsible for Brazilian clear cutting in favor of raising cattle?

And as far as corn and cattle feed:

Different cattle feeding production systems have separate advantages and disadvantages. Most cows have a diet that is composed of at least some forage (grass, legumes, or silage). In fact most beef cattle are raised on pasture from birth in the spring until autumn (7 to 9 months).[citation needed]Then for pasture-fed animals, grass is the forage that composes all or at least the great majority of their diet. Cattle fattened in feedlots are fed small amounts of hay or straw supplemented with grain, soy and other ingredients in order to increase the energy density of the diet. The debate is whether cattle should be raised on diets primarily composed of pasture (grass) or a concentrated diet of grain, soy, corn and other supplements. The issue is often complicated by the political interests and confusion between labels such as "free range", "organic", or "natural". Cattle raised on a primarily forage diet are termed grass-fed or pasture-raised; for example meat or milk may be called grass-fed beef or pasture-raised dairy. However, the term "pasture-raised" can lead to confusion with the term "free range", which does not describe exactly what the animals eat.

Wikipedia, cattle feeding

 

[mudwhistle]

At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.

At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?

Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?

Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.

Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.

You're focusing on the wrong continent.

Africa has been deforested and is mostly desert. That's why temperatures reach 130 degrees inland and 99 degrees along the coast.