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.
For years I"ve been trying to show people that "GW" is natural and that CO2 levels are rising because it's getting warmer (the warm beer effect) and not vice versa as the politically motivated types would have us believe.
Now there's yet another research paper that adds proof to that concept. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17. Summary-- the ratio of the C12 isotope to C13 isotope in the atmosphere has not changed for at least 500 yrs. That ratio is different in living tissue vs fossil fuels, ie- effect of burning FFs is nondetectable in the atmosphere.
So.. you found a paper that draws some conclusion from
Quote:
ratio is different in living tissue vs fossil fuels
We can of course find numerous scientific references that say that CO2 has primarily caused the warming.. Little thing going on now, burning fossil fuel produces CO2 and we are burning lots of fossil fuel. Its a obvious source of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 is a green house gas. Im going to dig up a bunch of references later.
But here is a question for you. If the warming is causing the CO2 increase, why didnt even higher temperatures 130K years ago also result in higher CO2 levels.
Look at the graphs. 130K years ago, the temperature anomaly was several degrees warmer than it is now. Yet the CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. You are saying that the warming caused CO2 levels to rise. Why did this NOT happen back 130K years ago.
You and that paper must be saying that the law of physics have changed?
Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-09-2024 at 10:59 PM..
No, Walt, you cannot show me even one study that shows CO2 causes warming. The best you can do is show cherry picked time spans where temps and CO2 !eve!s go up or down coincidentally.
Your rhetorical question about temps and co2 130K y/a proves my point: temps and co2 levels don't always correlate positively. While positive correlation does not prove cause and effect, lack of positive correlation is evidence against it.
World temps are influenced by many cyclic factors-- sun cycles, ocean upwelling cycles, astronomical cycles (several different ones) inclination of Earth's axis, etc etc. How these all add together trigonometrically determimes where the planet is in its temp cycls, ( Try graphing out y = sin x + sin 2x + sin 3x to see the wild, cyclic ride a point makes as you move along the x axis.)
As we've pointed out in our previous discussions, the effect on temps that co2 has is an exponential function. Most of the rise in temps caused by it occurred as its level went from 0 to about 50ppm. That helped temps go from 0*C to 10*C. At that point, there was enough water vspor in the air to account for 99% of the ghg effect, as it does now....
Because an exponential effect gives us doubling times, an increase of co2 from its current level of 420ppm to 840pm will only (other factors remaing stable) result in a 1*C warming.....but the other factors won't remain stable. They will change in response to exert their negatve feedback effects, so we won't even see that 1deg change.
So, nothing to see here, folks Back into your Rules for Radicals playbook to find a different fake crisis to exploit for political gain.
Burning one gallon of gas produces 19.5 pounds of CO2. When we burn fossil fuel, we always exhaust this directly into the atmosphere. CO2 us a green house gas so will trap heat. Just cars in the US burn 135 Million gallons per year of gas and emit 26 Trillion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is just gas from cars.
The fossil fuel industry just in the US is 1.81 Trillion $$ (ie, huge) and if we are to at least arrest climate change, we will need to cut way back or even eliminate burning fossil fuel unfortunately doing major damage to that industry. References later but the fossil fuel industry isnt sitting back and allowing this to happen and spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year underwriting and lobbying on climate change denial. We should discuss which political party is benefiting from the $$ since the subject was brought up.
Imagine your task (well paid task) is to convince the public that even though each auto is putting 19.5 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for each gallon of gas burned, this cant possibly be why CO2 levels were under 300 PPM for the last 800K years but today, CO2 is now over 420 PPM.
Maybe we can blame the oceans or maybe volcanoes for the CO2 instead of what is obvious.
How about the beer in the fridge.. GLM, if you came up with this, it totally ignores vapor pressure. Lets say you just put a glass of water in the fridge and piped in the filtered fumes from an auto exhaust so that only CO2 was entering the fridge. The concentration of CO2 in the fridge would become much higher than ambient and when you took the glass of water out of the fridge, it would now be carbonated.
Sorry, you cant blame the ocean for the elevated CO2 in the atmosphere as the ocean has actually absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere, not the other way around. When the ocean absorbs CO2, it becomes more acidic and that is what is actually happening. The ocean is not releasing CO2, it is absorbing CO2.
So we know that never in the time frame we have ice core records did higher temps than even now cause elevated CO2. And we know that the elevated CO2 in the atmosphere also caused elevated CO2 in the oceans.
How did the CO2 get into the atmosphere if we are trying to ignore the obvious 26 Trillion pounds just burning gas each year is actually emitting directly into the atmosphere?
Open a warm beer. Open a cold beer. Which out-gasses more bubbles? Both have the same gas pressures. So much for that argument.
Whenever I see "scientists" referring to "pounds of a gas" I know they have either little knowledge or are trying to scam us, or both. Gases are measured in mo!es by actual scientists.
If the increasing CO2 levels in the last 200 yrs are due to burning fossil fuels, then how did they get to be 4000ppm in past epochs?
Why has CO2 been rising monotonically at a rate of 2ppm/yrs over the last 2 centuries, yet half of all FF ever burned was burned in only the last 20 years?....Most of the CO2 added to the ATM merely enters the carbon cycle being absorbed into oceans and vegetation. The amount of carbon in those dwarfs the amount of carbon in the air.....We Intuitively know that the C sequestered in FF does add to the atm level, but the point of that paper is that the amount is too low to even measure.
....and why, as this research posted in the OP shows, has the ratio of the two isotopes not been changing in response to the FF use? (Remember those "mixing problems" in Algebra I class?)....
I will patiently await your finding and posting a research paper other than convenient correlation studies showing CO2 levels are affecting weather... While you're at it, please explain the falling temps from 1930 to 1945 and from 1960 to 1985 despite rising CO2.
So we have a paper from Greece that conflicts with the acepted science that comes up with a model that says that the warming must have caused the CO2 in the atmosphere and not humans. The paper doesnt describe where the CO2 came from, just that the "model" predicts it was caused by warming.
So we are entertaining this even though ice core records show this has NEVER occurred in the last 800K years even though it has been warmer than today. About 130K years ago, it was several degrees warmer than today (likely from sun orbit variations) but the CO2 never got above 300 PPM. CO2 is now over 420 PPM which is a huge 40 percent higher than it ever got 130K years ago and instead of questioning the model used by this one paper, we are going to ignore direct evidence that temperature never has caused the high CO2 levels we have now. This is a really huge fact to ignore.. but lets go on.
So where did the 40 percent increase in CO2 over the last few hundred years come from. I have to point out again that GLM is completely ignoring the obvious source of 36.6 Billion TONS that are coming out of our tailpipes and smokes stacks directly into the atmosphere. Lets put our heads in the sand over this also for the moment.
Im going to post a several links that say the ocean is currently a sink for CO2. It is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, NOT releasing it. The special GLM beer can theory (may I give it your name since I think you came up with it on your own), says that the oceans are out gassing CO2 because its warmer. This is just NOT true. References to back this up..
The ocean absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released in the atmosphere. As levels of atmospheric CO2 increase from human activity such as burning fossil fuels (e.g., car emissions) and changing land use (e.g., deforestation), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean also increases.
It (ocean) absorbs about one-quarter of the CO2 that we humans create when we burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas.) If not for the ocean, we'd be in even worse trouble with too much CO2.
Searching for "total C in biomass," I found, surprisingly, that it represents only about 1/10,000th of that in the ATM. So much for the "plant more trees to sequester C" idea.
Arguing that burning FF is adding C to the ATM is like arguing that you weigh more with long hair than with short. It's mathematically true, but insignificant from the practical standpoint.
Because the false idea that the ocean is like a warm beer will likely pop up here as the source of CO2 in the atmosphere
Here is a link that describes why the ocean is now a sink for CO2 and has been for a long time. The oceans are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and this is primarily a plant / animal interaction. There is a secondary temperature dependence that you can read about but the bottom line is that the oceans take CO2 out of the atmosphere even as the ocean water temp is increasing due to our current atmosphere warming. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...ing-it-too-far
Quote:
Where the sun shines at the surface of the water, microscopic plants called phytoplankton and algae are happily soaking up those rays and taking in carbon dioxide while they photosynthesize. In exchange for that CO2, these largely invisible organisms produce around half of the oxygen we land dwellers breathe, Buesseler noted.
Then, when the sun goes down, the countless fish and other sea creatures that dwell in the midwaters embark on a long journey, traveling up hundreds of meters to feed on those tasty aquatic plants (and each other) under the cover of darkness. As they eat, they consume some of the carbon that those tiny plants absorbed from the atmosphere. At sunrise, the creatures make their way back to the twilight zone to hide from predators until repeating the process the next evening.
“It is this huge, coordinated dance that all of these organisms go on every single day,” said Morgan Raven, an organic geochemist and geobiologist at the University of California Santa Barbara. “It’s happening on time scales we could observe with our eyes, [but] it’s invisible to most of us.”
When those small fish poop, or when their bigger predators poop, that waste contains some of the carbon captured by the plants. So too do the decaying bodies of any sea creatures.
Meanwhile, some percentage of the microscopic plant life that thrives at the surface dies and sinks fairly quickly through the water column, Raven said. These tiny particles combine with other organic materials, plus little pieces of rocks and shells, to form what researchers call “marine snow,” and for good reason: this amalgamation of particulate ocean waste strongly resembles snow falling on a winter night.
All of this matter has the chance of reaching the deep ocean, where it can stay out of the atmosphere, fueled by plain old gravity.
The balance between uptake of CO2 by oceans has two aspects-- the purely physical chemical (my beer analogy) and the biological (photosynthesis & exoskeleton production).
The balance of that gas exchange is not at all as well understood as your references would like us to think. Consider this much more thoughtful treatment of the concept. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8910268/
According to this model, substantiated by the authors' observational data, warmer oceans take up less CO2 from the atm thsn cooler oceans.
As intuitive proof that it's the oceans that dominate the carbon cycle, ask yourself how exaggerated swings in CO2 levels occurred in the distant past? No fossil fuel to blame then....This also explains the 800 year lag in CO2 level changes behind temp levels in the ice core data. Rising CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause.
A theory must explain all the data, not just some of it.
CO2 is critical for life but it has a couple undesirable characteristics in that once its put into the atmosphere, it stays there for centuries and of course CO2 is a green house gas.
During the ice core records going back 800K years, CO2 would reach about 300 PPM during the warm periods but never exceeded this level even during hotter periods than now.
During the warm period we are in now, CO2 levels had stayed near the 300 PPM range for many thousands of years similar to the last 800K years warm periods. But when we started burning fossil fuel, the CO2 levels started to go up little by little each year. Remember that what you put in the atmosphere in the past stays there so the total level just ratchets up with the amount you put in that year.
We are now at 424 PPM. Annual emissions from burning fossil fuel create 36.6 Billion tons of CO2. About 30 percent of that gets removed from the atmosphere (see previous links) and the rest stays in the atmosphere and ratchets up the total reading by about 2.8 PPM each year. In a little over two years we will be at 430 PPM at current burn rates.
CO2 is a green house gas so if you increase the concentration, more energy gets trapped and temperature rises. There is no delay, increase the concentration of green house gas and you get more trapped energy. The earths global temperature is the sum of natural variations plus the contribution from green house gases. This is exactly what we are seeing now. When the contribution from rising CO2 was just beginning, we see mostly the natural variations. But as the CO2 levels get higher, we see the global temp now rising with the natural variation's riding on top.
The fact that whatever CO2 gets put into the atmosphere stays there says that even if we totally stopped burning fossil fuel, many generations will live with however hot the planet got. 2023 was the warmest year on record. If we wait 20 years to stop, every single year will be warmer that 2023 and some years will be a LOT warmer than 2023. Its going to get weird.
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.
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.
