Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-22-2022, 03:59 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,253 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17747

Advertisements

monthly_in_situ_co2_mlo.csv <-- click on that in this site https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atm...o2_record.html It's the official monthly data from Mauna Loa.

Instead of spending all the time to average the monthly data into yearly averages, just pick a month (I took July and then did it again with Jan) for each of 1960, '70 etc thru '20......The decadal change divided by 10 gives you the average yearly change over the decade....

...You're right, each decade showed a little more than the last (exception of the Jan 1990- Jan 2000), but the average for the whole period is 2ppm/yr and the yearly increments are on the order of + 0.1- 0.4ppm each year...

July variance of yrly ave by successive decades-- ( 0.8--1.3-1.7-1.9-2.0-2.4)...for Jan-- ( 0.9-1.1-2.0-1.4-1.9-2.5)....For the Jan data, successive increases weren't always more than the previous decade, despite increasing fuel use.

...I'm still not impressed that fuel use increasing at such a tremendous yearly rate did all that much to influence the readings.

Even a strong positive correlation doesn't not prove cause and effect, but a negative correlation (as for Jan '90m-00) is a strong argument that any cause and effect is not strong enough to overpower other factors.

We know temps have risen during the 50 years in question. We know oceans outgas co2 as they warm. We know fossil fuel use adds co2 to the atm...The questions are how much each source contributes, and can we significantly change things by altering fossil fuel consumption?

Answers-- Fossil fuels don't contribute all that much, and No.

BTW- your argument about "fastest rise in co2 in 17,000 yrs" is pretty easy to discount....Back then we were in an Ice Age that was 100,000 yrs old...Very little photosynthesis or biologic decay going on, and great amounts of co2 tied up in oceans covered with ice. [co2] levels were <200ppm...Warm things up a little, and co2 rises.....We're STILL not "officially" out of that Ice Age---An Interglacial is defined as a period with NO permanent ice. We still have permanent polar ice, ie-- we're still in The Ice Age and presumably, still warming to get out of it.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-22-2022 at 04:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2022, 05:36 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Maybe you can explain why we had nearly the same temperatures as now during the Mideaval warm period (warm enough for Vineyards in England) the CO2 was actually fairly stable at around 285 PPM. FYI, CO2 levels are now over 415 PPM. Some argument about photosynthesis I doing get.

We have been in the Holocene warm period for over 10 thousand years. All during this time CO2 remained fairly stable. But corresponding with when we started burning fossil fuel, the CO2 level shot up like 45 percent.. and 100 times faster than in 17 thousand years (I think it may be actually over the entire ice core record period).

Surely you must have read all the links in this thread that the oceans are both warming AND absorbing CO2. Proof is that the oceans are becoming more acidic because of CO2 from the atmosphere.. How does this happen? Because the CO2 in the atmosphere has been increased so much so diffusion takes place.

Ok.. on your text. FYI, I think you are trying to convince anyone that there isnt good correlation between CO2 and emissions.. Im looking at the graph below and this looks like very good correlation after 1970

I dont see anything other than our emissions causing the very unusual CO2 levels (way higher than any time in the ice core time period of 800 thousand years or so).

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ioxide%20rises
]

https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2016/...ough-the-ages/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 01:46 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,253 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17747
You answered your own question-- Warm enough in the Middle Ages to grow grapes in Iceland-- yet co2 was much lower--and STILL not warm enough to grow them there now....???? Lousy correlation to support a cause & effect process.


Your graph of co2 vs emissions is another one of those lies propagated by The Warmists--same way they illustrate co2 vs temps-- The Lie is that they select the ordinate inappropriately (we've been over this before)

In your graph, the scale for emissions runs from 0 to 40 and the increase in emissions is a 40-fold increase over time. The graph from 1950 on is a line with a 45deg positive slope, BUT--

The ordinate for co2 SHOULD run from zero also, then up to 420, and the line would illustrate a 0.4-fold increase in co2. The graph for co2 would look like a flat line with a barely discernable, slight positive slope

An honest graph would not be visually impressive at all and not support your desired conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 08:51 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
So.. CO2 rate of increase is 100 times faster than in the last 17K years (which includes coming out of an ice period, the medieval warm period and the little ice age) Some made up theory which makes no sense about Photosynthesis causing this even though Photosynthesis has been doing its thing this whole time.

CO2 has never gone above 300 PPM during the entire ice core record even though its been warmer than now during this time frame. I dont think the laws of physics for natural exchanges were different then than now yet we are at over 415 PPM.

The oceans are absorbing CO2 evidenced by them becoming more acidic. The huge increase in CO2 we have seen during the last hundred years could not have come from the ocean. "Coincidently" during this same time frame humans began injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

We have shown many links indicating Volcanoes have only produce a tiny fraction of the CO2 that humans have caused.

Quote:
Your graph of co2 vs emissions is another one of those lies propagated by The Warmists
Funny.. this is what we have regarding the plot from NOAA / climage.gov

I have no reason to think this graph is incorrect (linked below again). It clearly shows a correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 atmospheric levels after about 1970 where the two lines meet. Nothing else comes even remotely close to showing such a clear correlation.

The question is why is the CO2 atmospheric concentration plot rising even starting as early as the 1800's? Speculation on my part but maybe forest fire? The link below is very interesting to read concerning wild fire in the US and why the acres burned were so high over in the time frame where there is a question of the NOAA plot. This is only for the US, world population was increasing and the same could have been happening all over the planet. We should have a discussion on wildfire.. but here are some snips. The link below is very interesting regarding wildfire in the US.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...vice-fire-data

Quote:
Owners of southern pine forests believed that they needed to burn the underbrush in their forests every few years or the brush would build up, creating the fuels for uncontrollable wildfires. But the mulish Forest Service insisted that all fires were bad, so it refused to fund fire protection districts in any state that allowed prescribed burning.

When a state refused to ban prescribed fire, the Forest Service responded by counting all fires in that state, prescribed or wild, as wildfires. Many southern landowners believed they needed to burn their forests every four or five years, so perhaps 20 percent of forests would be burned each year, compared with less than 1 percent of forests burned through actual wildfires. Thus, counting the prescribed fires greatly inflated the total number of acres burned.
Image below from here https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ioxide%20rises

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-23-2022 at 09:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 09:24 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,253 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17747
Walt, the data is not incorrect-- It's the way that it is presented that is dishonest.---They make a 1.4x increase in co2 look "equivalent" to a 40x increase in fossil fuel use.

Consider the temp graphs we always see-- a 1degK increase in temps over the past century and a half has been presented as a line with a + 45 deg upward slope, implying a 100% increase over each unit of time...But in reality, that 1 degK warming is 1deg out of 287-- only a 0.3% increase over each unit of time.

I'm really getting tired of repeating this stuff. You post the same data & pictures, and I tell you why they don't show what you have been fooled into thinking they show.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 10:00 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Who does that "small number" science stuff work on LOL?

I see we are not going to address the majority of the issues in my last two posts. Nothing but our emissions can explain the huge increase in CO2 levels. Someone is clearly lying. but it couldn't possibly be the fossil fuel industry extremely well funded denial marking industry could it? They wouldn't do that.. would they.. given that they have seriously huge $$ to lose if we do anything about what is clearly a problem mainly for future generations.

FYI, here is that forest fire link again.. really interesting to read. Just so it doesnt get lost so quickly.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...vice-fire-data
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 01:26 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,253 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17747
!!! I just had a Topeka! moment...You are in disbelief that natural co2 flow can account for the rise in co2 because, if warm oceans mean more co2 outgassing, then, the oceans can't absorb the "extra" co2 from fossil fuels ---Am I right?

The problem is that the oceans aren't "outgassing,"-- they are absorbing less...subtle difference.

Go back to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/...c-co2-summary/ --" Figure 1 shows 1.4% of natural carbon is in the atmosphere and 90% is in the deep ocean. This is an equilibrium fingerprint that human carbon will approach." (The oceans can't tell a "human co2" from a "natural" one.)

In other words, 90% of all that "extra co2" is going to be absorbed each year-- Fossil fuel emissions are 5% of the total planet C cycle.... 10% of 5% is only 0.5% of the total c load actually comes from fossil fuels and stays in the atmosphere each year....If atm co2 equilibrates with the total load, then 1/2% of 280ppm (the "baseline load") is 1.4ppm addition annually-- in the right ballpark of 1-2 ppm /yr increase in co2....The remaining increase in co2 comes "naturally."

I'll partially concede the argument-- according to that ref, 33ppm of the 140ppm rise in co2 since 1850 is due to fossil fuels...but more recently, it's on the order of 1ppm/yr-- half or more of the increase being seen.

...but I'm still not of the opinion that anything needs to be done about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 03:06 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
So we have the watts up with that dude making up some simple model and then a bunch of numbers show up that I guess must have come from his model.

Once again before even entertaining this, you have to get past explaining:

The CO2 in the atmosphere was never higher than 300 PPM in a million years even though there were warmer periods. The CO2 rates of increase are a factor of 100 time larger now than anytime in the last 17K years. I get to repeat this over and over because its apparently completely ignored that whatever natural event wuwt thinks happened has never happened in the last million years. No explanation of why the laws of physics just changed coincidentally at the same time we started pumping emissions directly into the atmosphere.

Not only that, we have increases in Methane and Nitrous oxide that also correlate with human emissions. At least methane has a completely different ocean cycle.

So does anyone else agree with watts up guy? I could only find sources that contradict this guy. You would think that if this magically happened (it didnt in the last million years) that someone would have measured something or other by now?

https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/dataset...-co2-exchange/

Quote:
Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels, the net global ocean flux was slightly positive to offset the absorption of CO2 from the land plants. Today, humans have reversed that trend so the oceans absorb more CO2 than they release although the complicated pattern of positive and negative fluxes still exists.

Regions of upwelling (the equatorial Pacific and the west coast of South America) are natural sources of CO2, where old water with high concentrations of CO2 is brought to the surface, and the excess CO2 is degassed into the atmosphere. Colder regions are capable of absorbing more CO2 than warm regions, so the polar regions tend to be sinks of CO2 (see the North Atlantic and Arctic). As atmospheric CO2 increases from the burning of fossil fuels, more regions of the ocean absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and the global ocean source and sink regions are no longer in balance. By 2100, much of the global ocean is expected to be a sink of CO2 from the atmosphere. As this CO2 dissolves into the ocean, it alters the ocean chemistry and lowers the pH of the water.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-po...ously-thought/

Quote:
Before the industrial era, the ocean was actually a net source of CO2. However, the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, driven by human-caused emissions are forcing the ocean to now absorb this gas.

While the ability of the ocean to capture and store carbon has helped to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 – and, hence, the pace of global warming – it has come at a cost. Increasing CO2 in the ocean alters the chemistry of seawater – an effect known as ocean acidification – which has negative impacts on marine life.
Hmm... why is it that I think wuwt is just a denial marketing arm of the fossel fuel industry .. Probably some pretty good $$ made there deceiving voters that there is no problem.. just bury your head in the sand, it will all go away.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-23-2022 at 03:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2022, 03:30 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
..but I'm still not of the opinion that anything needs to be done about it.
Maybe.. Wisconsin might become an overall nicer year around place to live.. I moved two years ago and picked a place where I think I will be OK.. I might be watching the forest burn up but likely wont have my own house burn (consideration when buying). Im as much a hypocrite as anyone else when it comes time to make any real sacrifices

But for a lot of people, its going to get weirder and weirder and they are not going to be happy about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2022, 03:33 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,253 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17747
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post

The CO2 in the atmosphere was never higher than 300 PPM in a million years even though there were warmer periods.....

Not only that, we have increases in Methane and Nitrous oxide that also correlate with human emissions. At least methane has a completely different ocean cycle.

.
No, YOU have to explain why it got so warm despite low co2,,,, Teh co2/warming relationship has a correlation of zero over geologic time....Why would warming now need co2 as an excuse when it never needed it before?


To repeat things discussed in other threads-- Methane is a non- problem-- While it may be as much as 100x "stronger" than co2 as a ghg (most research says only 20-40x), its concentration is only 10,000x smaller than co2, so its net effect on warming can be no more than 1/100 that of co2...We won't mention that its absorption spectrum is completely overlapped by h2o & co2, so there's essentially no energy left over for it to absorb or that it's quickly turned to co2 by our strongly oxidizing atmosphere....and NOx is in such small concentrations it can also be ignored completely as a gh factor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top