The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then explain this please.

Hmm, already did. Moving on...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He didn't, troll. You asked him how much CO2 frozen plants "give up", he answered,"All." You took it there. Your trolling does not belong in this section.

Plants freeze, die, and release their carbon back to atmospheric CO2.
That causes warming.
That increases plant growth again.

The Profound Junk Science of Climate

haha, a perfect illustration of your intellectual fraud. yes, I should go talk to flat earthers and those who think disease is caused by demons. You know, your crowd. because, if I don't, then I am just a big meanie that hurts Davee's fee-fees. GTFOH Gosh, you sure do hate it when people...

www.usmessageboard.com

Are you upset that I asked him to clarify his claim?
Do you think frozen dead plants release all their CO2?

 

[Mushroom]

Hmm, already did. Moving on...

Actually, you never did. And I do not expect you to either.

But thank you for playing John Snow.

 

[ding]

I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.

{...
An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]

In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]
...}

Ice age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What you just posted said otherwise.

 

[ding]

How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?
Remember that at one time, the Earth's atmosphere was ammonia and methane, without any free oxygen at all.
It was only phyto bacteria and later phyto plankton that switched the Earth over to having free atmospheric oxygen at all.
It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.

Because deforestation does not necessarily mean killing off ALL plants.

95% of global deforestation occurs in the tropics. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for almost half. After long periods of forest clearance in the past, most of today's richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.

Deforestation and Forest Loss

Explore long-term changes in deforestation and deforestation rates across the world today.

ourworldindata.org

 

[ReinyDays]

Sounds like you are blind to the changes and are using nutty fairy tale logic to fit your wacko views. No one has climate records from thousands of years ago nor do they have forecasts from thousands of years in the future. Modern records go back a few hundred years.

We've had days over 20 yrs ago where a rainy forecast and looking day didn't produce rain, but those were the exceptions. Today, most living in Cali can tell the difference and that those forecasts are more off or fewer than before.

Let's see your empirical data that shows your point ... we have 100 years of data, please point to where you see any changes in precipitation rates ... we understand why California gets the weather she gets ... and why she has this climate of hers ... and these reasons start with her proximity to the Pacific Ocean ... and she has always been next to the Pacific Ocean ... || ...

I've been a student of California weather for almost 50 years now ... I know exactly what you're talking about ... it's normal, always has been, always will be ... it effect was really bad in the winter of 1976-77 ... which is well demonstrated in the precipitation data for that time period ...

 

[Mushroom]

95% of global deforestation occurs in the tropics. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for almost half. After long periods of forest clearance in the past, most of today's richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.

But still at a negative. And trees are the most effective "carbon sink" there is, our planet has been using them as such for hundreds of millions of years. Is how the Carboniferous era got its name after all.

And when they cut, they normally "slash and burn", releasing hundreds of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years to grow such a tree and it has a lot of carbon trapped in it. But only a few hours to burn it and release all that back into the atmosphere.

 

[Mushroom]

Let's see your empirical data that shows your point ... we have 100 years of data, please point to where you see any changes in precipitation rates ... we understand why California gets the weather she gets ... and why she has this climate of hers ... and these reasons start with her proximity to the Pacific Ocean ... and she has always been next to the Pacific Ocean ... || ...

I've been a student of California weather for almost 50 years now ... I know exactly what you're talking about ... it's normal, always has been, always will be ... it effect was really bad in the winter of 1976-77 ... which is well demonstrated in the precipitation data for that time period ...

California on average has a 7 year weather cycle. 6 years of dry hot weather, followed by a year of drenching monsoons. It has been like that for thousands of years, and will continue following the same pattern.

Yet each time, the media goes crazy talking about 6 years of drought, then the damage from all the flooding caused by "global warming". But the thing is, it is nothing new, it is just that for some reason people forget it each time. It is the el niño - la niña cycle. I first became aware of it in the early 1980's when an el niño cycle destroyed most of the piers in the LA area. And almost like clockwork it has repeated every 7 years plus or minus a year or two.

The last one was just a few years ago when the state almost destroyed the Oroville Dam. We were already having massive flooding, and more was to come because he had a heavy snowfall that year. Yet because of "drought" they wanted all the water saved.

 

[ding]

But still at a negative. And trees are the most effective "carbon sink" there is, our planet has been using them as such for hundreds of millions of years. Is how the Carboniferous era got its name after all.

And when they cut, they normally "slash and burn", releasing hundreds of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years to grow such a tree and it has a lot of carbon trapped in it. But only a few hours to burn it and release all that back into the atmosphere.

If 94% of all CO2 is stored in the ocean wouldn't the ocean be the most effective carbon sink?

Plants respire all the time, whether it is dark or light. They photosynthesise only when they are in the light.

Conditions	Photosynthesis v respiration	Overall result
Dark	Respiration but no photosynthesis	Oxygen taken in, carbon dioxide given out
Dim light	Photosynthesis rate equals respiration rate	Neither gas is taken in or given out
Bright light	Photosynthesis rate greater than respiration rate	Carbon dioxide taken in, oxygen given out

And deciduous plants pretty much give back the carbon they sequestered every year when they lose their leaves as all plants do when they die.

Photosynthesis and respiration in plants - Photosynthesis - KS3 Biology Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn how plants make food using photosynthesis and how leaves adapt to do this with BBC Bitesize KS3 Science.

www.bbc.co.uk

As for it being a negative, you will have to take that up with Brazil, Indonesia and other countries in the tropics, right? Because most of today's richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.

 

[Mushroom]

If 94% of all CO2 is stored in the ocean wouldn't the ocean be the most effective carbon sink?

Ahhh, but much of that was never "atmospheric carbon". It was always either deep subsurface or geological carbon dioxide, and never part of the free atmosphere.

A key aspect of a "carbon sink" is that the CO2 is removed form the atmosphere. The carbon in deep ocean was never part of the atmosphere (or if it was it was hundreds of millions of years ago). It will remain there forever, not added to other than via things like undersea volcanoes.

And for another example, look no farther than Lake Nyos. Which about 36 years ago killed over 1,700 people when a massive carbon dioxide release smothered everybody that lived near the lake. But that carbon did not come from the atmosphere, it was volcanic.

And "deciduous plants" is really a vague term. But the way you are phrasing it, they are not sinks at all. Sinks are trees. Massive living structures that can be made up of multiple tons of carbon, primarily pulled from the atmosphere. When you compare the mass of a 100 year old oak tree, the leaves are a fraction of the weight of the wood core itself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you upset that I asked him to clarify his claim?

No.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, you never did. And I do not expect you to either.

But thank you for playing John Snow.

I sure did. Stop being a little baby. You misunderstood me and read waaay too far into it. I have clarified. Get over it or don't. Your problem.

 

[ding]

Ahhh, but much of that was never "atmospheric carbon". It was always either deep subsurface or geological carbon dioxide, and never part of the free atmosphere.

Do you have a link for that because I'm pretty sure that is false. Have you ever heard of the azolla event?

The Ocean’s Carbon Balance

The amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can take from the atmosphere is controlled by both natural cycles and human activity.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Azolla event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The carbon in deep ocean was never part of the atmosphere (or if it was it was hundreds of millions of years ago). It will remain there forever, not added to other than via things like undersea volcanoes.

Again... do you have a link for that?

And for another example, look no farther than Lake Nyos. Which about 36 years ago killed over 1,700 people when a massive carbon dioxide release smothered everybody that lived near the lake. But that carbon did not come from the atmosphere, it was volcanic.

And does not prove that the ocean containing 94% of the earth's CO2 got there from under water volcanos.

And "deciduous plants" is really a vague term. But the way you are phrasing it, they are not sinks at all. Sinks are trees. Massive living structures that can be made up of multiple tons of carbon, primarily pulled from the atmosphere. When you compare the mass of a 100 year old oak tree, the leaves are a fraction of the weight of the wood core itself.

Trees lose leaves, right? Those leaves decompose, right?

Actually the point I am making is that plants aren't the carbon sinks you think they are. They do return CO2 back to the atmosphere just like the ocean can return CO2 back to the atmosphere. They just have a different mechanism is all. These are dynamic complex processes which are not as simple as you are trying to make them sound.

Are you familiar with the seasonal fluctuation of CO2 and why it is more prevalent at northern latitudes than southern latitudes? And have you ever done a material balance on the season fluctuation of CO2 and compared that to annual emissions?

https://cires.colorado.edu/outreach/sites/default/files/2020-03/Climate%20Resiliency%20HS5%20-%20StudentActivityGuideRef3.pdf

 

[Mushroom]

Do you have a link for that because I'm pretty sure that is false. Have you ever heard of the azolla event?

"Hypothesized" for one. Second, it was not a sink of atmospheric carbon, but of plant material. Plants sinking into water does not make water a "carbon sink". No more than throwing a few thousand logs into a cave makes the cave a carbon sink.

 

[Mushroom]

You misunderstood me and read waaay too far into it

In other words you tried to lie as I was responding to exactly what you said.

But it's OK, I know you have no credibility so it no longer matters. Thank you for making me realize that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Plants sinking into water does not make water a "carbon sink". No more than throwing a few thousand logs into a cave makes the cave a carbon sink.

I laughed

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other words you tried to lie as I was responding to exactly what you said.

Hmm, no, sorry. I don't know why your tiny little pecker is so hard over me, and I don't care. It was merely a flip comment to insinuate more oxygen would then become bound up in carbon dioxide. Nothing more. Anythinggbeyond that is your fetish and fantasy, and yours to struggle through. Don't ask again. Thanks.

 

[Mushroom]

And does not prove that the ocean containing 94% of the earth's CO2 got there from under water volcanos.

Also, show me a reference showing it is "94% of global CO2", because I have never seen a reference give it anywhere even close to that figure. At most, I think I have seen 25%.

And even then, most who actually read the research recognize that is not all and never has been "atmospheric CO2", but that the oceans have their own O2-CO2 cycle that is largely independent of what happens on the surface.

So here we have something interesting, in that you are asking me to confirm something that I myself do not even believe, and have never heard from a reputable source before.

 

[Mushroom]

It was merely a flip comment to insinuate more oxygen would then become bound up in carbon dioxide.

And it was a fail, because that is not how it works at all. Oxygen does not just magically transform into CO2.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And it was a fail, because that is not how it works at all. Oxygen does not just magically transform into CO2.

I didn't imply that it would. Again, you are playing with dollies of your own invention.