CO2 Sequestration on WTTW Chicago Tonight 03/27/07

[Rovinpiper]

WKHalford "...CO2 isn't a pollutant." Yes it is. It's just not toxic. CFCs are non-toxic yet, they destroy ozone, and that's bad. watch?v=g093lhtpEFo watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU&playnext=1­&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33 "THE SUN" There is no trend in solar output that explains global warming. watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA&feature=re­lated watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM&feature=re­lated "9,000 scientists" Such petitions are generally full of nonexperts and frauds. watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&feature=gr­ec_index

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper CO2 is often injected in greenhouses as an inexpensive way to increase plant growth. But they have to KEEP injecting it, because the plants then start to produce more oxygen, which retards plant growth.

So if the amount of CO2 in the air is increasing, then why isn't the amount of oxygen in the air increasing as plants produce more?

NASA data shows that the temperatures of other planets rise and fall along with the Earth's temperatures. I don't have links, but it HAS been posted.

[Rovinpiper]

WKHalford

Gains from CO2 fertilization are unlikely to offset losses from changes in moisture regimes.

watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI

watch?v=g093lhtpEFo

The CO2 is composed of C from fuel and O from the atmosphere. We are adding CO2 to that atmosphere faster than it can be removed by plants. There is no reason to expect an increase in O2.

Temperature data on other planets is extremely sparse. Trends in insolation and cosmic rays do not explain the warming on Earth.

watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper But wait, the so-called experts said that the cooling experienced over the last several years was due to a "slingshot effect" caused by the Earth having warmed too much, which has caused the temps to swing in the other direction.

Now you are quoting these same "experts" and saying that the Earth hasn't cooled.

So which is it?

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

I'd love to see your source about the slingshot effect. I have never heard anyone claim this, and I cannot think of any physical mechanism by which it might occur.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper The "slingshot effect" makes no sense to me either.

When opponents of global warming point out that the Earth has cooled, some proponents of global warming claim the "slingshot effect" is why, while others totally deny the cooling.

Although almost the whole North American continent having the coldest temps in 60 years during the '09-'10 winter, as well as Europe having lower than normal temps isn't the whole world, combined they certainly make up a significant part of the Earth.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

Well using surface area numbers from wikipedia I find that North America and Europe combined make up 6.840015% of the Earth's surface.

Then you chose only one season, winter, to discuss. So if we say that winter is half of the year, we should multiply 6.840015 by 0.5 and we get 3.4200075%.

If you look at less than 3.5% of the data, how likely do you think it is that you will get a misleading impression of the whole?

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper But you are assuming that just because I mentioned only North America and Europe, that it was only North America and Europe.

And that also doesn't take into account the vast bodies of water, which could have been colder as well.

And you are also assuming that just because I mentioned only winter temps that were colder, that it was only winter temps.

Although there is data saying CO2 levels hasn't risen, there is also data saying CO2 levels have risen but temperatures have not.

[Rovinpiper]

Hal

"...you are assuming...just because I mentioned...it was only North America and Europe...only winter temps."

No, I pointed out the geographically and temporally limited nature of your claim because my claim was based on a 12-month average for the entire globe during the exact same time period. What you said could easily be true for 6.84% of the Earth's surface for half of the year, but the fact remains that a 12-month running average of global temperature was reached during that time.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper And you also need to take into account how much colder that 6.84% was on average.

I don't know how much colder than normal that 6.84% was, but lets say if it was only 1 degree, that might not mean much. But for instance, if it was 5 or even 10 degrees, that's more significant.

And it's also likely to be true that the surrounding area, most of which is ocean, could have been colder as well, increasing that 6.84%. After all, cold weather doesn't usually stop at the coastline.

[Rovinpiper]

Hal

For the love of God, man! It's the 12-month running average. It takes into account the temperature for 12-months of the entire world. So yes, it factors in the temperature of North America and Europe, and yes the temperatures of the ocean are taken into account, and yes the magnitude of their differences from the norm is taken into account.

12-month running AVERAGE of GLOBAL temperature.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper SInce you posted links, here is a You Tube link to part 1 of a 4 part explanation of so-called "global warming", including a sensible dissemination of data.

watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=re­lated

Just paste it after the w w w dot youtube dot com, and then watch the other 3 parts.

[Rovinpiper]

WKH

In that video you pointed out Bob Carter starts off by claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant, as though that were established fact and not his thesis. Even if he could disprove CO2's importance in climate, he would still need to prove that it does not lower ocean pH to actually prove that.

Then he moves on to paleoclimate data. But he only uses ice core data from Greenland. This is more cherry-picking.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper And it wouldn't surprise me to find out that those that say human activities are causing climate change or global warming or whatever they eventually decide to call it were also cherry-picking.

[Rovinpiper]

WKHal

Bob Carter is presenting an argument that was previously promulgated by Don Easterbrook. When Easterbrook made this argument he was using data that ended in 1855 to talk about temperatures up to the present. I cannot tell if Carter is making the same mistake, but it seems likely.

If your skeptical of the USGS's ability to quantify volcanic CO2 emissions you should really be skeptical of a global temperature record based on one proxy from a single ice core.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper And here is another one on You Tube. It also looks closely at the data.

watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8&feature=re­lmfu

[Rovinpiper]

Hal

The other video is no better. All three of his arguments are wrong.

Yes temp has lead CO2 in the past. That's because CO2 was acting as a feedback amplifying an orbital forcing on temperature: watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

The tropospheric hot spot is a warming signature, not a greenhouse signature. It has been observed in short-term datasets. John Christy says that failure to find it indicates the limitations of methods of detecting it, not the absence of the hot spot.

[Rovinpiper]

As for his last graph. It ends in 2005 so it doesn't show how warm 2009 - 2010 was. And it is clear from the graph that 2001 to 2005 was clearly a very warm time relative to the previous part of the graph.

He repeats the claim that global warming stopped in 1998 which is more silly cherry-picking:

watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

He seems to think that exponentially increasing CO2 should cause an exponential temperature increase. Climatologists have never predicted that.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

This link: watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8&feature=re­­lmfu

doesn't seem to work

I still don't see that you've provided any source to back up your claim about the "slingshot effect". If you cannot show a credible report of someone saying something, then you cannot be sure that he/she/they said it. Also, you cannot use the statement of 1 person to say that everyone who generally agrees with that person is ridiculous.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper Funny, I copied and pasted the link right after the youtube dot com / in the address bar, and it worked just fine. The actual name of the video is "Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming".

I don't have a source for the slingshot effect simply because I can't remember exactly where I saw that. But I have seen more than once from more than one source. Regardless, it came from some of the same people that seem to back up what you are saying.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

Claims of cooling are essentially based on cherry picking. If you look at calender year Average Global Temperatures (AGT) over a decade or less it is particularly easy to create confusion. You can say that it cooled from 1998 to 2008, for instance.

Of course, rolling averages over longer periods of time are far more informative, since this is a long-term trend in a noisy dataset.

Is the slingshot effect a confusion of El Nino/La Nina? That definitely applies around 1998.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper If ONLY ONE volcano can put out more CO2 than decades of all human activities combined, then they cannot prove human activities cause global warming.

By the way, they no longer call it "global warming" for a reason because they now see that the Earth has cooled for a few years. And they now see that the Earth cools and warms in cycles.

So with such simple data as that, again, how can they say man's activities have warmed the Earth?

[Rovinpiper]

WKHalford

If volcanoes did release more CO2 than industry, then you would be correct. In reality, human activities release 130x the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes.

watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

Your second paragrah is just wrong. It's still global warming. 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record. The highest 12-month running average of global temperature was reached in 2010.

watch?v=mqMunulJU7w

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper The winter of 2009-2010 was the coldest on record in 60 years for just about all of the North American continent. Even where I lived at the time near Tampa, Florida saw night temps below 30 for 1 1/2 week. The winter night temp MIGHT get under 30 twice in a winter. And here in New Mexico, they tell me they got a lot of snow in places they don't normally get snow. Europe had colder than normal temps too, so it wasn't just this part of the world.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

In response to my statement that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and the greatest 12-month rolling average on record was reached in 2010, you say that winter in Europe and North America was cold during that time. You have thus, cited a very small part of a dataset to get a trend that is contrary to what the entire dataset shows.

That is called cherry-picking. It is the mainstay of the climate denial movement. It's not the way to learn, though.

[WKHalford]

I see you totally ignored what I said about CO2 injection into greenhouses and how they have to keep injecting it so the plants don't asphyxiate themselves with oxygen.

You totally ignored what I said in my first post about plants needing CO2, which makes it NOT a pollutant.

Anyone that believes that human activities put out more than volcanoes, especially considering all the continuous active volcanoes and fissures worldwide (ever been to Yellowstone and saw all the thermal areas?) is a fool.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

The fact that plants need CO2 for photosynthesis is in no way proof that CO2 does not have radiative properties that can lead to global warming.

There certainly are lots of volcanoes and other natural CO2 sources, but there are also a lot of vehicles, furnaces, and generators. Therefore, to compare the emissions we need real measurements.

According to "Volcano watch" on the USGS website volcanoes produce 200 million tonnes per year, industry releases 26.8 billion tonnes per yr.

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper I saw a chart once that tracked CO2 amounts in the atmosphere over the course of the century. Although there were slight variations over time, the amount showed no significant increase.

And keep in mind that CO2 is fairly easy to measure from industrial sources, especially since industry is now required to measure and track CO2.

However, do you think they can accurately measure ALL CO2 from ALL volcanoes, especially ones that are in places/countries the USGS has no access to?

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

The term "significant" has a specific statistical meaning. It tells how certain we can be that there are differences between data sets when we take into account the variability in each data set. It is typically not something that you can eyeball from a graph. You need to do calculations.

But any graph of CO2 concentrations since measurements began in 1958 should show an obvious increase at an increasing rate. It seems there is more CO2 now than at any prior time in human history.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

"...do you think they can accurately measure ALL CO2 from ALL volcanoes..."

Your showing some good critical thinking here. You should always ask how things are quantified when you are evaluating scientific research. However, this contradicts your earlier claim. If you don't think it is even possible to quantify volcanic CO2 emissions how can you be so sure that they are larger than industrial emissions?

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper Some scientists have said it's more than industrial sources. Maybe they are looking at the sheer amount of emissions volcanoes produce and making an educated guess? It takes an awful lot of smokestacks to equal ONE volcano. Then figure ALL volcanoes. The add things like the thermal areas at Yellowstone (I've been there and seen only part of what's there) and other places in the world that are constantly putting out. And that's not even considering all insect, animal, etc. sources.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

"...USGS has no access..."

These estimates aren't based on USGS sending personnel all over the world to take measurements. They're based on reviews of the scientific literature. So, they're based on measurements taken by people from many organizations: universities, US governments, foreign governments, etc. So, it's not about the limitations of the USGS its about the limitations of all of the researchers studying this question.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

If you don't understand how something is estimated it would be wise to go to google scholar and search for papers on it. You might try search terms like "volcanic contributions to the carbon cycle" or "volcanic CO2 efflux".

It seems what you've done so far is to use your own lack of understanding of these measurements as an excuse to stick with beliefs that match up with your original opinion.

How can you improve if you only look for the information to support your prejudices?

[WKHalford]

@Rovinpiper I used to blindly believe that the Earth was warming and that we were the cause. I even worried about it, being I lived in Florida at the time.

Since then, I've heard quite a few things from various sources showing that man isn't the cause, as well as contradictory things about whether the Earth was warming or cooling, and whether CO2 was increasing or staying the same.

My mind changed.

Being I was able to change my mind surely means I'm not closed minded.

[Rovinpiper]

Halford

The characterization and reduction of uncertainties is a key process in science. It is not right to take uncertainties as license to disregard all of the research available on a topic in favor of your preconceptions. Yet that is what you keep doing.

The Natural Environment Research Council of the British Geological Survey has a publication called "Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle" that goes into depth on how such contributions are measured.

[EventGraphics]

Back in the 1970's they were worried we were heading for an ice age. I think the main point here is that the scientists don't understand or know what they are doing, Their knowledge is limited to what has happened in the past. Live your life and don't worry, the planet will be fine... we might just be killing ourselves! Life will survive!

[Rovinpiper]

EventGraphics

A small minority of climatologists predicted an imminent ice age. They were correct that aerosols were lowering the temperature, but wrong to think that this would continue. There was never a consensus that an ice age was imminent. Certainly, there was nothing resembling the massive evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming that we have today.

watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

[pr0gm3r]

Does a Sun consider a part of the equation for global warming? hmm.. what will happened if the next decade the earth is cooling? do we still blame CO2 and the burning of foil fuel?

[JonThm]

The most important global warming gas is water! Without it, there would be no life on Earth. CO2 isn't even in the equation. So man ahs nothing to do with the climate - but we all knew that!

[MrTeaB]

The issue isnt China its the USA. The USA has, for years, been denying and refuting climate change. Its the US attitude that needs to change. It not anyone elses problem, its everyones problem. Considering the US is the largest polluter they are THE ISSUE. Not China.

[circusboy90210]

usa pollutes about 17% as much as china. get the fact straight. one volcanoe puts out more than mans industry's could put out in a thousand years. Why even go through the trouble? It's arrogant to think that we are the problem.

[uSteltzen]

That's all China does is burn the dirtiest coal for energy called brown coal. I think the situation with China is biggest issue because they not only use cheap labor but cheap fuel. This makes US exports very uncompetitive no matter how you look at it.

[col1n1234]

every can of cola opened releases CO2 but not a word to be Said

[s334523]

The volume of carbon dioxide produced from coal burning power plants is in the millions of tons per year for an average plant - far beyond the needs of commercial uses. thus the initiatives to sequester (storage) the carbon dioxide underground to keep it out of the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming.

[circusboy90210]

This is still vrtually nothing compared to what mother nature puts out. it's totally arrogant to think we can influence the planet on this level. Get Educamucated

[Markos1978]

Pumping carbon dioxide into the ground is a stupid idea! Carbon Dioxide has value! The hot gas could be cooled into liquid and can be utilized for commercial purposes.

[1singlet]

Good video.

[chishilaoG]

kinda cool

[jizzmonger]

It's a hoax you tards.

Who do you think is going to buy the plants that can't come into compliance?

When 20 plants that can't come into compliance shut-down, what do you think will happen to the price of electricity on a de-regulated market?