Laughing at the responses over Low concentrations of poisons, versus CO2 which is essential as a building block of carbon based life (that's us). Case in point being that plants need it to create simple sugars, amino acids, and rna and dna. (carbon based - remember?) so you're comparing stuff plants need to grow into food to build people and animals, calling it a pollutant and comparing it to poison - nice going - duh!
Sorry misunderstanding, I don't mean that CO2 is poisonous, but sometimes also a little amount can change a whole system. One milligram of Cobalt60 can change Your personality system from life to dead. And million of tons CO2 extra in the atmosphere of earth can change the energy equilibration whit unpredictable impact in any direction.
@abakan12 your English is effective. (but I think you replied to the wrong post) - Yeah Co has an impact at <1mg as well, still, Co can be considered a toxin. My main point being that hard evidence is demonstrating that the claimed greenhouse heat is leaving Earth. I know the argument overall will change because the eco religion is much more about controlling people and gaining funds than it is about using real, meticulous science.
@ObiWanShinobi1 You can die from drinking too much water just the same as plants can die from too much CO2! So, YES CO2 can become a poison & still be in very small concentration in the atmosphere! THINK! Or are you simply so politically motivated that no amount of science, evidence facts, etc., would matter to get you to THINK?
@Viracocha711 Think exactly what? - I have seen evidence that a large majority of the conclusions about global warming - that's what we're ultimately talking about right? - have been reached by creating artificial environments with responses based in the researcher's opinion about how the real earth SHOULD react. it seems that "think" in capital letters really means "why the hell aren't you just agreeing with me? - because there are plenty of people lying about how much of what affects what.
@ObiWanShinobi1 NO, what you have seen is DISTORTION...The science is crystal clear & has been reached over decades of research by numerous organizations from around the world! You can read the science or you can read everything else. Not sure how scientifically literate you are but science is not "opinion'. GOOGLE: "Skeptical Science" & "Real Climate" both are very good websites based on NOTHING but the science from climate scientist. Real Climate you can ask questions!
@Viracocha711 decades of research built on computer models of the earth and its ecosystems responding in a programmed fashion, NOT necessarily in the actual fashion. Consider the Study done through NASA satellites, showing that much, much more heat is dissipating into space as compared to the pretend models of the warming proponents. Global warming is fake. Its a religion in which the followers are believing what they choose to because they want to ignore hard evidence to the contrary.
Anyone who thinks carbon dioxide is going to end the world is a fucking moron. CO2 Feeds plants. They in turn feed us. Without CO2, we all die. Global warming is a fucking scam, wake up.
@f56789123 Without water we all die...If we drink too much we DIE! Plants EVOLVED with certain levels of CO2 & if those levels rise too high the plants will die! You need to to actually learn some science & stop repeating what you hear on Talk Radio or read on a Professional Denialist website!
@Viracocha711 You need to do a little research yourself, I think. Millions of years ago plant and animal life were both far more rampant than they are now. As a result plants, insects, and animals were far larger in size than today. Be careful what you call science - it's being revised all the time.
Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't mean it's right, or "scientific."
@f56789123 Sorry, but your comment shows how IGNORANT you are when it comes to SCIENCE! What you described had NOTHING to do with CO2 but the fact OXYGEN levels were much higher back then. And you fail to even THINK that there were ZERO humans on the planet then! The majority of scientist DO NOT "BELIEVE" they know due to the overwhelming EVIDENCE! "Belief" is not science & that is where your IGNORANCE allows you to be used by those who are working for the fossil fuel Industry!
First, you need to admit to yourself that you're worried about yourself, not the planet. I agree with the notion that burning coal and pollution is not good, anyone can see that. Problem is, you don't understand that you're being misled. We have technology to provide our race with free energy worldwide. We don't because of the incredibly corrupt system of control (the head of the snake being money) that exists. Until you understand the real problem, you cannot fix it.
@Viracocha711 Sorry you're so weak-minded, inconsiderate, and childlike. If you're ever ready to grow up and start behaving like a human being, I'll be waiting for you.
@f56789123 Talk about "CHILDLIKE"...Check out this quote! "We have technology to provide our race with free energy worldwide. We don't because of the incredibly corrupt system of control (the head of the snake being money) that exists. Until you understand the real problem, you cannot fix it." NO NO NO, until YOU come back to REALITY then we can talk! I will be waiting!
I would never come here whitout "desertphile". Sorry my english is horrible (but let me guess - 10 times better than Your german) Never forget the sentence: Die Dosis macht das Gift (Paracelsus). The question is never "how much total?". The question is, "how much change a runnig system?". Doswidania!
@abakan12 Actually, satellite data is proving that heat has been dissipating into space at a pretty uniform rate, which means that the "greenhouse" models are false, and apparently the predicted change doesn't exist. - My German is probably more like 20 times worse than your English though.
Yes, its not that much. It only raises the absorption of energy into heat by a few degrees. In the cosmic scale of things, who cares, thats almost nothing. But as biological beings that live on this planet who REALLY REALLY like to eat food and hate tropical storms....
Hey, bullets are relatively insignificant compared to average adult size and mass, I say fuck it. If a guy points a gun at you, pull down your pants and piss on his shoes. I mean, what's he going to do ... shoot you? Please, bullets are so tiny!
And if a guy comes at you with a knife, trade him up to a gun on the spot! Knives are so much larger than bulltes. Trust me, you'll be better off!
@Nobleepingway ; the fatal dose of atmospheric cyanide for adult humans is 270 ppm. Someone should give this stupid spooky woman a dose and see if she still believes small concentrations aren't a problem.
The three major constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon do not absorb infrared radiation. Without those trace gasses, the Earth would be frozen solid.
Wow, what a pointless exercise. She actually teaches kids?
The point is not that CO2 is a low percentage, its that it has a large effect on temperature. And it's effect will conitnue to rise as the amounts of CO2 increase.
Way to go! Ignore the central science question there, and make a sensationalist argument.
Global Warming Caused by Cosmic Rays and the Sun – Not Humans, 26 August 2011, by Lawrence Solomon (The Financial Post – Sott) - New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism , 27 July 2011, by James Taylor (Forbes)
@YouriCarma These are simple minded, mistaken, deluded (or worse) pieces of misdirection and propaganda which have been completely debunked. Are you that thick that you believe 150 years of science can be overturned by opinionated newspaper articles written by at least one stalwart of the denialist Heartland institute - he completely misrepresents what the scientific paper actually says. Don't you realise, you are being taken for a fool by these types who lie and twist for political reasons.
Also the 15 ppm figure is massively misleading. The CO2 emitted by natural processes is indeed much greater than man's but the deceit presented here is not mentioning that natural CO2 absorption processes are even greater than natural emissions. As a consequence, mankind's emissions are actually responsible for ALL the increase in ppm (280->390). The ecosphere absorbs about half of our emissions but the other half makes up 100% of the rise in CO2. It's just about all down to us!
This video is very misleading. It is based on a previous one where the "teacher's" agenda is clearer.
The ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed low but that doesn't mean it has a low effect. The deceptive use of rice grains covers up that 995,000'ish ppm of the atmosphere is not climate forcing greenhouse gas and so is irrelevant. A more truthful demonstration would show a bowl with about 300,000 CO2 grains in a million - the other 700k would be water vapour (a greenhouse feedback).
You seem to believe that just because a number is small, it can be disregarded. I can assure you that this small increase globally is causing the climate change that we are now experiencing and will continue to experience in the future. Stop kidding yourself with ridiculous non-arguments such as this.
Erm.......................I'm afraid your arguments are incorrect. All this demonstrates is how much CO2 is currently in the atmosphere and how much of that was contributed by human activity. You seem to be completely ignorant of the science that underlines this data. 96% of natural CO2 is balanced through exchanges between atmosphere and earth, while the 4% contribution by humanity is unbalanced and rising. This 4% in CO2 is enough to cause devastating climate change on the earth and is rising.
@rgonz71 her math is wrong. Also, rice is a bad medium. our atmosphere is not like rice, it's much more like water. If you were to take a gallon of water and put 390 PPM of red dye in it and put that next to a gallon of water with 260-280 PPM of red dye in it - then you would have a valid atmospheric comparison. Also, where did she get 15 PPM is the man made change. The man made change is 110-130 PPM depending on which starting point you use.
@rgonz71 She is lying with "statistics". That is what she is doing in this video. The most deceitful bit is the "4% emissions translates to only 15ppm". She is either being very stupid, deceitful or she has no idea what these figures represent.
You can't ADD heats, so even if it did absorb and 'keep' heat it, it would have little effect. Think about it. When you go into a dark cave with a torch, the light doesn't add until the room is bright and fully visible. Same with a flame. The stored by the Earth heat CANNOT physically add to the already there heat. If this was the case, our energy problems would be solved.
You are making an elementary mistake. The water vapor is effectively determined by the CO2 because water vapor only lasts a few days before it gets rained out. So its equilibrium level is determined by temperature. It amplifies the effect of CO2 and that is what determines the global temperature.
@Zantorc You are making am elementary mistake. The Sun and its effect on the oceans determine the climate. The Atmosphere cools the planet during daytime and keeps it warm at night. Heat only moves from hot to cold. Therefore Carbon dioxide would transmit its heat to space during the day.
@david222444 I always look at both sides of the argument, which convinces me the skeptics are wrong.
If your skepticism is faith rather than evidence based you wont want to look at counter arguments. So the questions I have for you is. Is it worth my while pointing out the errors in the skeptic arguments? Would you change your opinion if they turn out to be wrong? How many times do the best skeptic arguments have to be shown to be false, before you suspect that you might be being duped?
@Zantorc And what do you think that i have been doing? Yes I too bought the Greenhouse theory like many others who have been brainwashed by the green propaganda machine. So where is the error in what I said? Can you not see that man's influence is dwarfed by natural influences on the climate? Do you not think that you are the one being duped?
@david222444 An argument is a 2 way process going back and forth. You seem to have stopped at skeptic arguments without subjecting them to any scrutiny. There is no excuse for that, web sites exist which specialise in collecting the latest skeptic arguments, and pointing out the errors in them. I go out of my way to study skeptic arguments (I haven't seen one yet which withstood scruitiny). I don't want AGW any more than you, but I'm not prepared to delude myself that it isn't happening. ...
@Zantorc .Continued... Phrases like 'bought the greenhouse theory', 'brainwashed' and 'green propaganda machine' show you as ideologically wedded to one side of the argument. The debate in the scientific arena has been settled for years, which is why the fossil fuel industry has tried to turn it into an ideological debate in the public arena. There is no point in me telling you where you are wrong, if your opinion is not evidence based, being shown to be wrong isn't going to change it.
@david222444 My opinion is based on the scientific evidence and I would change it in an instant if the evidence indicated. In response to my question 'would you change you opinion if your skeptic argument was shown to be wrong', you didn't seem able to answer. So who is deluded?
But let me leave you with this thought. Being cynical and realizing that facts and evidence wont change your views, I am delighted you are championing a very foolish skeptic argument. Please spread it widely.
There's no conspiracy. AGW is about Marxists doing what they've been doing for many years only more vigorously. They tried pumping the global warming shit into my head at school in the 80s. Then after being discredited they gave it rest for a while and 20 years later they're trying again but with drastically more propaganda targetted at kids in schools and on TV.
This video is flat out wrong. It isn't taking into account that human annual emissions accumulate. We haven't been doing this for a single year. Over 200 years our steady trickle of extra CO2 has bumped CO2 levels up 39% to highs not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.
That bag of 385 red rice (now should be 390) used to only be 280 in the 1800s.
Also all that white rice are irrelevant as they are not greenhouse gases. Only the colored rice count in terms of climate change.
You seem very passionate. But, I think your passion has been falsely inflamed. You see, when science finds a problem with too much of a chemical, money from the industry that produces too much of that chemical always creates a PR campaign to impugn the science.
Is that 15 CO2 ppm from fossil fuel *per-year*, because you are comparing it to the *total*, which is illogical.
these are units of measurement, not units of mass! Oxygen and Nitrogen make up the majority of the atmosphere. they are not greenhouse gases. though i'd expect as much from those who fiendishly try to refute anthropogenic global warming.
@ivangrozny27 actually, Mars' atmosphere is comprised mostly of CO2. it is actually 95.32% carbon dioxide and 2.7% nitrogen AND it has a much thinner atmosphere than the Earth's.
also, the temperatures of mars varies from -207 degrees F to 80 degrees F.
What scientific consensus would that be? The lies from the University of East Anglia? The 'oversights' perhaps of the IPCC? The false NASA data? The film from well known scientist Al Gore that was taken to court and found guilty of 9 major lies? I think we all know what climate change is about and people are finally waking up as attested to by the collapse of the Chicago Carbon Exchange. QED
Since we're on the subject of rice, maybe you should put 12 -15 parts per million of ricin into your body and see how you feel. You're right though. Let's keep digging carbon out of the ground and spraying it into the atmosphere. Let's also ignore scientific consensus on the matter. Even if there is a 0.1% chance that humans are putting the earth on a path to catastrophic climate change, then we must wage war on climate change. How did I even get to this terrible place on the internet?
@ClimateScam Well, that wasn't a nice thing to say. I forgive you though, because I know that my comment made you experience cognitive dissonance. Google that if you don't know what it is. Then google for the NYT op-ed called "Going Cheney on Climate." Then, after that, watch this vid: /watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
@billsnitzer Wait a minute there...you said - "Even if there is a 0.1% chance that humans are putting the earth on a path to catastrophic climate change, then we must wage war on climate change."
No. If the evidence overwhelmingly points to it (AGW) being a complete scam, backed up by dishonest and falsified science, then we should use our god-given brains and remember that the Earth's clinmate has, and always will, change and vary over time.
@billsnitzer Google historic CO2 atmosphere levels. It is well established that much much higher CO2 levels existed in the atmosphere in time past. This would support the huge amount of vegetation that dinosaurs needed to eat. Most of this carbon got removed from the carbon cycle & became unavailable when it was buried & converted to subterranean coal and oil. Go study the CO2/Carbon cycle — earth's? life carrying capacity is in proportion to the available CO2/carbon. Viva — release more CO2!
I am taking this film as a message to the individual!
It's asking YOU! Are YOU feeling guilty???
There is not a pair off longs in this world, that can be held accountable for the amount of CO2 that is found to be to much!
My personall ACTIVITY's, I live as aware as possible, do not contribute to the totall off CO2. OK, I ride a bike, riding this bike I will turn oxigin into CO2 but YOU WILL NOT MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT'S BAD! I AM NOT FEELING GUILTY ANY MORE, DEU TO THIS FILM! But I do consume!?
Haha, hello, I'm Sjoerd from the Netherlands. How am I to interpret this little film?
And it's reactions?
To 1ElisaPardo: Nice, now I've seen the emmisionchart. I mean; It's not my breath! I don't own a car, I've got the green energy at home, I don't even have a polluting job and the chart still sets standards in international principals in sted off multinationals who are internationall! Get it? It's not country's that have extensive emmisions, it's multi-nationals! Sorry for poor English!
As a skeptic I'll concede the bare figures mean nothing without the potential changes from them, although man's small contribution is significant as too marginal to be significant or measurable in its effects.
But all is not as it seems. Time-Life published the 1961 CO2 concentration in 'Matter' back then as not a fixed but variable norm, between 260 and 400ppm. Had the current 390 or so been measured then before any agenda no one would have said a thing besides being on the high end.
Not just because the 4% figure is not indicative of man's total contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations (as has already been pointed out), but also because most of the gases in the atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, argon... all those big bags of rice) are not greenhouse gases, so the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 by volume is irrelevant to ones "carbon footprint". Only the warming effect of the extra CO2 is notable.
@Mechness Didnt you note the water vapour bags of rice (the blue ones) represent the largest component of green house gas? The 15 grains of red (man made CO2) are small when compared to the natural emission of CO2. You totally missed the point, even if you cut out the 15 grains of man made CO2 by 100% (i.e. cut man's emssion to zero) it would hardly effect the total amount of CO2. Its really simple, and irrefutable.
Plants & ocean algae have a huge capacity to take up man's puny output of CO2.
@melanoficus It is easy to refute: Man has already increased CO2 concentration by a third. That is a significant amount and the rate of increase is still accelerating. Atmospheric water vapour concentration is not relevant; it can only be increased or deceased by increasing or decreasing the temperature of the atmosphere. This makes water vapour an amplifier of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The biosphere can absorb some excess CO2, but that is already taken off the totals.
"Plants & ocean algae have a huge capacity to take up man's puny output of CO2."
Plants and ocean algae might be able to absorb some of our additional CO2, but they fail to absorb it all. CO2 has risen 39% since the industrial revolution to a level not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.
And what about feedback and tipping points. Permafrost is falling apart.
co2 is stronger then those rise, and methane is even 30 times stronger as co2. If those red rise are blocking more heat as the white you cant compare them like that also. And those methane are insane, 30 times stronger (as co2). So there like multi times stronger as the white.
You should concentrate on the jets spraying clouds all over North America and figure out what particulate i being dispersed before blaming individuals just trying to survive. Blame the monopolies that give the planet only damaging ways to survive through commerce. Good effort but you need to address the airlines and jets that directly effect the heating of the planet.
@STEVEDIGIBOYtv they're called chemtrails. Look at thousands of videos here. They have aluminum and barium and other poisons in them. There are people all over getting sick with asthma and other ling diseases all on the rise. They are lying if they say global warming is the reason for them. The normal contrail disappears after a short while leaving a tail. Chemtrails leave a long trail miles long that spread out blocking the sun and turning the sky overcast. It's not for good. Nefarious reasons!
@Achara : That the stratosphere cooled is just one successul prediction of greenhouse gas theory. More CO2 insulates the stratosphere from the warm surface and troposphere. Hence it cools and radiates less energy to space. The shortwave solar input, however, remains constant. So there is an energy imbalance and the surface and troposphere warm up until enough energy can escape in between the greenhouse gas absorption bands and a new radiative balance is restored. This is quite uncontroversial.
@TheAmazingFuturist "Parts per million by volume" is just a way of dividing something, like one half is one of two equal parts, one tenth is one out of ten equal parts, one percent is one out of 100 equal parts.
Those one million grains of rice represent the entire atmosphere of the earth, a point I wish I had made more clear. Weather mixes the gasses up, of course. At ordinary temperatures and pressures, there are equal numbers of gas molecules in every (equal) volume unit, so we are (cont)
@1ElisaPardo (cont) really just counting to find the FRACTION of each of the different gasses. By the way, I never intended that this little video would be on the internet, I just made it for some others in case they wanted to do a GOOD job instead, using glass beads instead of rice. A lot I would have put in (which would probably have made it boring!), like the rice representing the entire atmosphere, is missing.
@1ElisaPardo A little clarification: my cyberspace friends liked the video as is, and wanted to put it on their website, climate realists (where you can find an accompanying article for the video). I was surprised they liked it and agreed they could post it.
@1ElisaPardo Hi I've read and heard in science magazines even before the global warming scare that humans can cause global temperatures to rise through CO2 to dangerous levels. Where did you get your information that humans give off only 4% of the total global footprint? The more (unbiased) references, the better.
@dhinge YouTube will not let me put the link here, so I will add it to the information box at the upper right for this video. It is from the US Department of Energy.
Use the slider on the chart and in the lower right hand corner you will find total CO2 worldwide emissions from energy use, 2008 is the latest year they have. It's about 32 gigatons, to be generous. Now, if you know the mass of the atmosphere, you can back-calculate from 385 ppm to find total CO2. (cont.)
@1ElisaPardo Well, howdy doody, YouTube has changed its format and the extra info is under the screen and you just click on it. Please see calculations I've shown previously, below, showing that total CO2 is about 2700 Gt. 32/2700 gives only about 1.2 percent human contribution to atmospheric CO2, from fossil fuel use alone, for 2008. Going up to 108 Gt of CO2 from man (which must include agriculture, manufacturing, etc.): 108/2700 gives the familiar 4 percent.
...I'm all for questioning, but really, who would be benefitting trying to 'con us' in to living more envirmently friendly? If it were the goverments they would not be as passive towards global warming as they are. And it sure as hell isnt the rich and powerful oil companies.
YES, governments WILL exploit this fear to get more control over us, but it doesnt mean that it isnt real...
Who buys a huge amount of rice, colors it in three diffrent colors, purchases a buch of ziplocks, to make a 2 minute video on youtube.
Also the video equppiment is pretty good.
People always talk about the "few scientists that are not controlled by the goverment". Ever stopped i thought that it might be the few scientists that are bought by the coorporations that speak up agianst the facts?
Precisely! The lower troposphere is where the warming is happening. The stratosphere has been cooling for years as CO2 levels increased there, irradiating more heat to outer space.
Actually, greenhouse gases are cooling gases, not warming ones. They don't "trap" heat and keep it indefinitely but radiates their energy in microseconds. Greenhoue gases merely redistribute heat around the planet making temperatures more uniform.
I think water vapor average concentration in the whole atmosphere may be closer to 0.25% by mass or 0.4% by mole fraction (=0.32% by mass), according to two different sources. 1% to 4% is an estimate for the low troposhere only.
Suppose you and your husband share a joint bank account with initially $280,000 in it. Every week he makes one deposit and one withdrawal about 145~155K$ each. You yourself deposit ~$7,000 every week and never make any withdrawal. After 31 weeks the new balance is $390,000. The increase is just half your total deposits. You claim responsibility for 100% of the savings. Your husband claims that he is responsible for 95% of the deposits and hence for 95% of the savings. Who is right?
I think you meant to say he makes one deposit of 145K and one withdrawal of 141.5K, otherwise, the 10K he pulls out per week, as you have it (145-155) will cause a net loss of 3K per week, offset by the 7K deposit of the wife, with the the balance 187K after 31 weeks. I will refrain from asking your political affiliation. Each dollar that is spent has identical purchasing power in the market, just as each CO2 molecule is indistinguishable to the absorption mechanisms of the earth.
Oh wait, the withdrawal would have to be 148.5, resulting in a net deposit of 3.5K per week, 108.5K after 31 weeks, and 388.5K total for the account. The money that stays in could be thought of as a carbon sink, that would be a decent analogy.
@1ElisaPardo That's correct. So, your husband withdraws more in the account than he deposits. You now this because your net contribution is positive and the accumulation lesser than yours. He is the global "natural" net sink in this analogy. You yourself are responsible for just 5% if the total deposits (analog to the 4% IPCC figure). But who is fully responsible for the savings (accumulation)?
@houlepn That was messed up, sorry. "So, your husband withdraws more from the account than he deposits. You know this because your net contribution is positive and yet the accumulation is smaller than your contribution..."
The main argument of your video is that the small number of red rice grains means that we don't have to worry about this part of the atmosphere. I still contend that this is innumerate.
It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.
Could you comment please on the general numerical point you are making rather than (or as well as) the actual numbers?
Fossil fuel use/human activity simply cannot account for much of the CO2. Also, CO2 levels rise, yet temperatures decline year after year: theory dead. Neither worry about the CO2 level, nor wrecking our economy with cap and trade schemes will affect CO2 level significantly. The real danger is CO2 below 200 ppmv, plants would die. CO2 is singled out for blame only because it can be linked to the combustion of fossil fuels. The scam depends on creating a false emergency, guilt, then a tax trap.
@1ElisaPardo The "real danger" of CO2 levels dropping below 200ppm seems quite imaginary. What would suddenly cause that? You video doesnt address the cause of current warming. It rather concerns the cause of CO2 increases. Even if climate scientists were dead wrong about AGW, we could still be fully responsible for the CO2 increase, as some scientifically competent AGW skeptics believe we indeed are. You haven't justified the claim that we are responsible for just 4% of the increase.
You simply ignore three independent scientific proofs--(1) from basic accounting of all known sinks and sources, (2) from variations in 14C/13C/12C atmospheric ratios and (3) from O2 depletion--that fossil fuel emissions caused all or most of the increase. Instead you have made self-contradictory claims implying that oceans (plus biota?) have been, during the same time span, both net sinks and net sources of atmospheric CO2. This seems quite illogical.
@houlepn Regarding you recent objection, the CO2/Temp lag issue is well understood and acknowledged by mainstream climate science. SciFive's comments are correct and to the point. However the lag phenomenon does seem to kill your own theory that the huge recent 38% increase was caused by some natural temperature change. The past lags after glacial age terminations average 800 years. But there was no commensurate temperature increase 800 years ago. There hasn't been any in the last 10 millenias.
@1ElisaPardo Oceans can't have been both a net source and a net sink over the same period. That would mean their CO2 content would have both increased and decreased over that period. This is a logical impossibility. Either they contributed CO2 to the rest of the biosphere or they mitigated the effect of other net sources such as our own emissions. You can have it both ways. You also ignore the isotopic and O2 depletion evidence. Is the MWP explanation of the CO2 increase a personal hypothesis?
The climate is exceedingly complex and no one should imagine that it can be described in either/or terms, it is full of non-linear processes all going on at the same time. I've noticed that experts use phrases like "The more we learn, the more we realize how much more there is to learn," and "We must admit we don't know." People with superficial knowledge are certain of it.
@1ElisaPardo The three independent demonstrations that we are responsible for the recent CO2 increase have nothing to do with climate. You claimed that our emissions wouldn't have built up because the oceans must have soaked the excess up; and that the recent accumulation was temperature driven, resulting in net outgassing... But then the oceans would have failed to perform as net sinks. But they obviously did. Else the accumulation would be larger than our emissions. But it isn't. What gives?
@houlepn So, suppose your MWP hypothesis is correct. The temperature change 1000 years ago triggered the recent release of ~110ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere. But we ourselves produced enough to account for 200ppmv. Shouldn't the total increase be 310 ppmv (and hence the total now be 510 ppmv)? Should we not rather say that oceans *would* have soaked up most our emissions but owing to MWP delayed effects they only soaked half of them? That still would make us responsible for 100% of the increase.
What gives? The earth gives . . . off CO2. Think of all the decaying vegetation in uninhabitable regions. Remember that the existence of a cycle doesn't imply a perfect equilibrium like in a closed system. Sources are constantly coming into new equilibria with their surroundings. It's the tendency toward equilibrium (entropy) that drives those processes, but they constantly change, just like the climate.
@1ElisaPardo What caused so much vegetation to decay since 1750 such that atmospheric CO2 rose to levels unprecedented in 450,000 years? Also, you still don't face up to the logical contradiction of your explanation. If the totality of natural carbon flows (from oceans, vegetation, whatever) had resulted in a positive fraction of the net cumulative increase in CO2 atmospheric content, then all our emissions, which already account for twice the total increase, would have magically disappeared.
@houlepn Yes, the Earth+Sun system is out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Is it thereby impossible that humans be pulling the natural carbon cycle out of balance? Could not our emitting CO2 in the atmosphere at twice the rate it has been accumulating in recent decades be responsible for the current CO2 imbalance? You believe decaying vegetation can be responsible, but fossil fuel burning and land use change can't possibly be? Is this too small? But it's currently twice the amount of the imbalance!
@houlepn Sorry, I meant to say : If the totality of natural carbon flows (from oceans, vegetation, whatever) had resulted in a positive fraction of the net cumulative increase in CO2 atmospheric content, then at least half our emissions, which already account for twice the total increase, would have magically disappeared (since natural flows were also positive contributors). If A+B=C; A and C both are positive; and A>C; then B can't also be positive.
I really think we are starting to go around in circles here. One factor that has not been addressed is the residence time of CO2 in the air, and there is wild disagreement about that, but a good, recent guess is 5-6 years. The point I make is that if you carefully tally all that man could be responsible for, it is but a small fraction of the (real!) increase. You have not shown why anthropogenic CO2 would have a different residence time as any other.
@1ElisaPardo The residence time results from mixing. It has no effect on balance. This is a common fallacy. Modify the banking account analogy with a pot on the dining room table and $1 bills. Your husband usually picks large amount and puts back slightly smaller amounts. You yourself only put very small amounts. You are thus fully responsible for any positive imbalance. But individual dollar bills have short residence time. A majority of the bills in the pot were put there by your husband.
@1ElisaPardo Incidentally, there is fast mixing with oceanic top layers but much slower mixing with deep layers. So, residence time in "atmosphere+top layers" is much longer. This is why the anthropogenic isotopic CO2 signals is as strong as it is in spite of mixing. This is of course accounted for in isotope ratio studies. And then there are O2 depletion measurements that only depend on the imbalance.
The cause of current warming. Hmm, hasn't it been cooling for about 8 years now? Let's stay in touch with reality. I mention CO2 below 200 (of course, unlikely) to point up that it is beneficial and essential, as we were supposed to learn in elementary school. There's precious little of it. There's quite a huge safety factor if it increases; such increase is positive.
@1ElisaPardo The Medieval Warm Period was a warming of at most 0.75 degree. Past warming in the last 450,000 years have been associated with long term (in the time frame of millennia) increases in CO2 concentrations at the rate of 8-10ppmv per degree of warming. If the same natural mechanism were at work, we should expect it to cause a 6ppm long term increase. The increase is now 110ppmv and it occurred within two centuries. Concentrations over 300ppm never occurred in the last 450 millennia.
@1ElisaPardo YouTube orders more recent comments in reverse chronological order. Older comments are correctly threaded but only the five most highly rated in each thread may show up according to user preference. If you click "View all ### comments", they are then all correctly threaded, I think. This is a far from ideal forum format. Also, I commented on your reply to SciFive.
Your conclusion: 'because CO2 is a trace gas it is not a problem' is not only wrong, it is innumerate.
Numerate people see this the other way round:
'It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.'
That is: because the numbers are small, the problem is big.
Also - anthropgenic CO2 is 28% of the current total, not 4%.
I showed two sample calculations below for the percent of human-sourced CO2, using gigaton numbers from the IPCC 2007 report, and the simple meaning of 385 ppmv to determine total Gt of CO2. Can you show me the calculation that results in 28% from the Gt of human-sourced CO2 given in the IPCC report?
@1ElisaPardo Your calculation was meaningless because 4% is our share of the CO2 sources, not accounting for sinks at all, while 28% is the fraction of atmospheric CO2 that was added since 1750. Apples and oranges. To take 4% of the total atmospheric CO2 and call it our share of the increase makes no sense. A business can turn profitable if you increase just one source of income. This new source can then account for 100% of the future profits even while it represents just 4% of the raw incomes.
Further, if you really want to know and understand how climate scientists arrive at the conclusion that we are entirely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the last 250 years you probably ought to read the relevant section of the full report. This is section 7.3, beginning at page 511.
The difference is all anthropogenic - the concentration before 1750 was very stable and has never been over 300 ppmv in the past 400,000 years (Vostok).
Thus our contribution is 28% or 108 grains of rice.
The cumulative emissions from fossil fuels since 1750 are 1,181 Gt CO2 (source: CDIAC) - equiv. to 151 ppmv. Much of this has been absorbed by sinks - the main ones being the oceans and biomass.
I don't think we can say that the CO2 level before 1750 was very stable, and the Vostok ice cores show this, see
watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ
and look at the graph at 4 minutes and 4 seconds. You can see big shifts in the CO2 level, which *follow* temperature changes. The hockey stick graph gives an erroneous idea of an idyllic perfect equilibrium of nature that's been recently disrupted, and is an attempt to erase the Medieval Warm Period.
There were CO2 variations (from about 180ppm to 280pp) matching 10Kelvin temperature changes over cycles of glaciation with time periods of tens of millennia each. This makes for 10ppm per degree of temp change. (Short term adjustments were merely 2ppm per degree). The temp increase in the last 250 years is 0.6 degree. It would only account for a long term CO2 adjustment of 6ppm. The sudden rise to 380ppm is unprecedented in the last few million years. Most of it occurred in recent decades.
The very large increase (+38%) in atmospheric CO2 partial pressure more than offsets the small temperature increase (+0.2%), making the oceans a net sink. This explains why while the fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 totaled 1,181 Gt CO2, the 108ppm CO2 increase in the atmosphere only represents 72% of this amount. Where did the extra CO2 emissions go? The oceans and biota together were a net sink. It is thus impossible that they were at the same time a net source, as you would seem to suggest.
@1ElisaPardo Please have a look at "Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core" hosted at CDIAC. Look at the graph and numbers. "The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." (That's 420,000 years) This discussion and your video aren't about climate. The topic is CO2 concentrations and our responsibility for the sudden increase, which happens to be in proportion with (and yet smaller than) our emissions.
Also, the "great ice ages" Plimer seems to refer to occured in Precambrian times more than 600 million years ago, not the recent Pleistocene for which we have ice core records. So, yeah, present CO2 levels aren't wholly unprecedented. But I said the present levels were "unprecedented in the last few million years", which is the opinion of mainstream climate scientists and geologists. Nothing Plimer said contradicts this claim.
Yes CO2 peaks 800 years after temperature peaks, but it is completely wrong to conclude from that that CO2 does not cause temp to increase. All it indicates is that there is a causal link the other way too.
We are seeing one mechanism for that now. Increased temp in the arctic is causing CH4 emissions from (what used to be) permafrost. In a few hundred years this will be CO2.
Because the causal link is two way it creates a positive feedback loop.
Regarding the "Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2", have a look at the paper with this title. (Available online)Oceans have taken up about half our emissions. Else the atmospheric increase would have been about 200ppm rather than just 100ppm. Consider also that volcanos collectively don't spit out CO2 at even 1 percent the rate we currently do.
Where does this 4% CO2 increase figure come from? Most sources I found state 36% to 40% increase since 1750 because of human acrivity. This is significant. Comparision with N2 and O2 isn't relevant. N2 and O2 aren't greenhouse gases.
All those white grains stand for the N2 and O2. Total CO2 level is certainly still rising, mostly from the oceans, decaying plant material, the occasional volcano, 96% from natural sources that people can't influence. Burning of fossil fuels contributes only about 4%, this data comes from IPCC summary report, however they give only tons, not concentrations. Too bad CO2 won't cause any warming (we could use that!), but the good thing is that it will increase crop yields.
Where did you find this in the IPCC summary report? I don't see it. In the first page it states that the rise was from 280ppm pre-industrial levels to 379ppm in 2005. That's a 35% increase. They claim that most of it comes from fossil fuel use and some more from land-use changes. Maybe you confused total CO2 sources with sources of CO2 increase?
Older IPCC reports, from say 1990, before the hockey stick nonsense should be used. The gigatons of fossil fuels burned annually, globally comes out to about 2 ppmv added per year. Humans just aren't that big compared to the oceans, etc. It takes a while for this CO2 to go through the carbon cycle, so we can only take credit for about 4% of the CO2 in the air. Temperature is the biggest factor: when the oceans warm, the CO2 comes out as a result of that, like when carbonated drinks warm up.
@1ElisaPardo So, you agree that it is 2ppm per year that we are responsible for. Hence, your total 14ppm represents the increase we have been responsible for producing in the last 7 years. Why did you choose arbitrarily to mention our contribution for just the last 7 years (and failed to specify that this is your baseline) ? 2ppm per year (in recent years) still is consistent with the the 35% increase since pre-industrial times until 2005. That's 99 grains of rice. Don't you agree?
Don't forget that in the carbon cycle, carbon is being captured by plants, crustaceans, and other carbon sinks: it doesn't just pile up. If the CO2 level is increasing, look to the earth as the source, not man. What we need is the perspective to see how tiny we are in comparison to the earth, we are just not that much of a force. One day I'm going to look up the total biomass of all the insects on the earth compared to that of all the people. It must be a many hundred-fold difference.
@1ElisaPardo You now claim that we are not responsible for the 99ppm increase at all? Why then claim 12ppm to 15ppm in the video title? Why would carbon sinks necessarily prevent a cumulative 99ppm increase from human sources and not also prevent a 12 to 15ppm increase in your view? Can you quote the IPCC report you mentioned as your source of the 12 to 15ppm figure or provide a page number? You can't justify a specific quantitative estimate on mere qualitative grounds and/or personal opinion.
Here is how you would do this calculation. IPCC 2007 report gives 26.4 gigatons CO2 from fossil fuels and 5.9 Gt from land use change, total 32.3 Gt CO2 from man. I used 4X10^6 Gt for mass of the troposphere(=80% of atmosphere). If .0385%(= 385ppm)of troposphere is CO2, mult by mass ratio of 44/29 of CO2 to air, and mult by mass of trop,we will get 2337 Gt total CO2 from all sources. Now 32.3/2337 gives a low 1.4%. Other sources say 108 Gt CO2 from man and 2700 Gt total CO2 . . . .continued
Their figure of 108 Gt CO2 from human activity must include manufacturing, etc. There is a nice agreement with my figure of 2337 Gt for total CO2. 108/2700 gives, voila, 4%. You can see that these results differ, but are in the right ball park. I don't have great math aptitude, but I can visualize and compare these quantities. I think any high school graduate can develop this much perspective. Perspective, that's what's needed.
@1ElisaPardo You are comparing the annual anthropogenic CO2 production with the total mass of atmospheric CO2. But this ratio is meaningless. It doesn't tell us what fraction of the increase of the last few centuries or decades we are responsible for. That's like comparing the profits of a business in its lifetime with its current annual sales revenues for one item. We are interested in is cumulative net profit margin, not brute incomes. Only the former figure cumulates in the bank account.
(Continued...) You earlier suggested that our CO2 outputs do not pile up. But do you believe they pile up for exactly one year, no more and no less? That would justify your 4% ratio. 35% rather represents the increase we are responsible for since 1750 (until 2005), which isn't simply related to the current annual rate of production in the way you think. Our production increased much more than other natural sources did.
Your line of reasoning assumes that man-made CO2 has different chemical properties than "natural" CO2 and inexplicably hangs around, unlike "natural" sourced CO2. There may be an isotope difference, but there is no chemical difference in the subsequent fate of any CO2 in the carbon cycle. For man to be contributing 35% CO2, it would have to be at about a nine-fold higher rate than now.
@1ElisaPardo You suggested the increase comes from ocean outgasing. But the atmospheric increase has been so large that the ocean surface concentrations have also increased. These measurements conflict with your hypothesis. Further, the isotopic ratio 12C/13C confirms that the atmospheric increase comes from fossil fuel and lost biomass (wood burning etc.). These aren't assumptions. They are empirical measurements. See the RealClimate site, index section: How do we Know Recent CO2 Increases...
I'm surprised you would suggest RealClimate as a source, being in the same camp as Jones, Mann, and Pachauri, who seems to be getting caught out in a new lie every week, and with calls for his resignation becoming ever more insistent. I think I'm done talking with you, but this does confirm my plans to set up a lab entitled "Buffering Capacity of Ocean Water" for when the students at my daughter's school get to acids and bases, prob in May.
@1ElisaPardo The main point simply is that since the CO2 concentration in the oceans' surface layers has steadily increased in recent decades, the excess atmosheric CO2 wouldn't come from there. Consider also that many AGW skeptics do not even dispute that we are mainly responsible for the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2. You ought to have a look at the article I mentioned and assess the data and arguments before assuming its authors must be dishonest. It's a short and informative read.
Seems like the video maker has no understanding of the difference between % composition and % effect!
back to school for her!
checkyoursources 3 weeks ago
Laughing at the responses over Low concentrations of poisons, versus CO2 which is essential as a building block of carbon based life (that's us). Case in point being that plants need it to create simple sugars, amino acids, and rna and dna. (carbon based - remember?) so you're comparing stuff plants need to grow into food to build people and animals, calling it a pollutant and comparing it to poison - nice going - duh!
ObiWanShinobi1 1 month ago
@ObiWanShinobi1
Sorry misunderstanding, I don't mean that CO2 is poisonous, but sometimes also a little amount can change a whole system. One milligram of Cobalt60 can change Your personality system from life to dead. And million of tons CO2 extra in the atmosphere of earth can change the energy equilibration whit unpredictable impact in any direction.
abakan12 1 month ago
@abakan12 your English is effective. (but I think you replied to the wrong post) - Yeah Co has an impact at <1mg as well, still, Co can be considered a toxin. My main point being that hard evidence is demonstrating that the claimed greenhouse heat is leaving Earth. I know the argument overall will change because the eco religion is much more about controlling people and gaining funds than it is about using real, meticulous science.
ObiWanShinobi1 1 month ago
@ObiWanShinobi1 You can die from drinking too much water just the same as plants can die from too much CO2! So, YES CO2 can become a poison & still be in very small concentration in the atmosphere! THINK! Or are you simply so politically motivated that no amount of science, evidence facts, etc., would matter to get you to THINK?
Viracocha711 1 week ago in playlist Climategate
@Viracocha711 Think exactly what? - I have seen evidence that a large majority of the conclusions about global warming - that's what we're ultimately talking about right? - have been reached by creating artificial environments with responses based in the researcher's opinion about how the real earth SHOULD react. it seems that "think" in capital letters really means "why the hell aren't you just agreeing with me? - because there are plenty of people lying about how much of what affects what.
ObiWanShinobi1 1 week ago
@ObiWanShinobi1 NO, what you have seen is DISTORTION...The science is crystal clear & has been reached over decades of research by numerous organizations from around the world! You can read the science or you can read everything else. Not sure how scientifically literate you are but science is not "opinion'. GOOGLE: "Skeptical Science" & "Real Climate" both are very good websites based on NOTHING but the science from climate scientist. Real Climate you can ask questions!
Viracocha711 1 week ago
@Viracocha711 decades of research built on computer models of the earth and its ecosystems responding in a programmed fashion, NOT necessarily in the actual fashion. Consider the Study done through NASA satellites, showing that much, much more heat is dissipating into space as compared to the pretend models of the warming proponents. Global warming is fake. Its a religion in which the followers are believing what they choose to because they want to ignore hard evidence to the contrary.
ObiWanShinobi1 1 week ago
Anyone who thinks carbon dioxide is going to end the world is a fucking moron. CO2 Feeds plants. They in turn feed us. Without CO2, we all die. Global warming is a fucking scam, wake up.
f56789123 1 month ago
@f56789123 Without water we all die...If we drink too much we DIE! Plants EVOLVED with certain levels of CO2 & if those levels rise too high the plants will die! You need to to actually learn some science & stop repeating what you hear on Talk Radio or read on a Professional Denialist website!
Viracocha711 1 week ago in playlist Climategate
@Viracocha711 You need to do a little research yourself, I think. Millions of years ago plant and animal life were both far more rampant than they are now. As a result plants, insects, and animals were far larger in size than today. Be careful what you call science - it's being revised all the time.
Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't mean it's right, or "scientific."
f56789123 1 week ago
@f56789123 Sorry, but your comment shows how IGNORANT you are when it comes to SCIENCE! What you described had NOTHING to do with CO2 but the fact OXYGEN levels were much higher back then. And you fail to even THINK that there were ZERO humans on the planet then! The majority of scientist DO NOT "BELIEVE" they know due to the overwhelming EVIDENCE! "Belief" is not science & that is where your IGNORANCE allows you to be used by those who are working for the fossil fuel Industry!
Viracocha711 1 week ago
@Viracocha711
First, you need to admit to yourself that you're worried about yourself, not the planet. I agree with the notion that burning coal and pollution is not good, anyone can see that. Problem is, you don't understand that you're being misled. We have technology to provide our race with free energy worldwide. We don't because of the incredibly corrupt system of control (the head of the snake being money) that exists. Until you understand the real problem, you cannot fix it.
f56789123 1 week ago
@f56789123 Yeah, have fun playing make believe! Talk to you later.
Viracocha711 1 week ago
@Viracocha711 Sorry you're so weak-minded, inconsiderate, and childlike. If you're ever ready to grow up and start behaving like a human being, I'll be waiting for you.
f56789123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@f56789123 Talk about "CHILDLIKE"...Check out this quote! "We have technology to provide our race with free energy worldwide. We don't because of the incredibly corrupt system of control (the head of the snake being money) that exists. Until you understand the real problem, you cannot fix it." NO NO NO, until YOU come back to REALITY then we can talk! I will be waiting!
Viracocha711 6 days ago
CO2 is plant food just like oxygen is people food. Plants and people have a perfect symbiotic relationship,
Michaelwiseguy 3 months ago
I would never come here whitout "desertphile". Sorry my english is horrible (but let me guess - 10 times better than Your german) Never forget the sentence: Die Dosis macht das Gift (Paracelsus). The question is never "how much total?". The question is, "how much change a runnig system?". Doswidania!
abakan12 3 months ago
@abakan12 Actually, satellite data is proving that heat has been dissipating into space at a pretty uniform rate, which means that the "greenhouse" models are false, and apparently the predicted change doesn't exist. - My German is probably more like 20 times worse than your English though.
ObiWanShinobi1 1 month ago
It's scary to think this person is responsible for teaching children.
s2cuts 3 months ago
5 ppm for phosgene is LETHAL
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_highly_toxic_gases
SiriusMined 3 months ago
@SiriusMined ; Hell, nicotine is also deadly in small doses. The "it's too tiny to worry about" belief just freaks me out.
Desertphile 3 months ago
Just really really stupid
Artifactorfiction 3 months ago
Yes, its not that much. It only raises the absorption of energy into heat by a few degrees. In the cosmic scale of things, who cares, thats almost nothing. But as biological beings that live on this planet who REALLY REALLY like to eat food and hate tropical storms....
grendelee 3 months ago
Why should we listen to you when you are only .00001428 parts per million human beings?
wwickeddogg 3 months ago 2
Hey, bullets are relatively insignificant compared to average adult size and mass, I say fuck it. If a guy points a gun at you, pull down your pants and piss on his shoes. I mean, what's he going to do ... shoot you? Please, bullets are so tiny!
And if a guy comes at you with a knife, trade him up to a gun on the spot! Knives are so much larger than bulltes. Trust me, you'll be better off!
Dream0Asylum 3 months ago 2
And you got it all wrong. Looks like you were home schooled or got a "Christian education." (sic) No offense.
Sarah? Sarah Palin? Is that you?
MakesMeAngry 3 months ago
Even if your numbers were correct the amount is not relevant. Its the effect it has on the climate that actually matters.
You are certainly not qualified as a teacher if your trying such deceptive methods to skewer facts.
Dasmaster1 3 months ago
I sincerely hope you're not a science teacher because if you are, you are failing ALL of your students.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 months ago
You science is wrong.
xXDEICIDE216Xx 3 months ago
Comment removed
Desertphile 3 months ago
111 ppm at the moment, and increasing.
Desertphile 3 months ago
CO2 isnt bad, its the government!
2012goingNutz 3 months ago
Teacher teaching ignorance. Great. Love it. Public school FTW
chronDiggity 3 months ago 2
It's not about the amount, it's about the effect. If you drink a solution that contains only 60 PPM of arsenic, it will still kill you.
Nobleepingway 4 months ago 2
@Nobleepingway ; the fatal dose of atmospheric cyanide for adult humans is 270 ppm. Someone should give this stupid spooky woman a dose and see if she still believes small concentrations aren't a problem.
Desertphile 3 months ago 9
@Desertphile Creepy, ok. But it would still hit it.
xXDEICIDE216Xx 3 months ago
The three major constituents of the atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon do not absorb infrared radiation. Without those trace gasses, the Earth would be frozen solid.
fredtheredshirt 4 months ago
Wow, what a pointless exercise. She actually teaches kids?
The point is not that CO2 is a low percentage, its that it has a large effect on temperature. And it's effect will conitnue to rise as the amounts of CO2 increase.
Way to go! Ignore the central science question there, and make a sensationalist argument.
slippywhistle 4 months ago 2
Global Warming Caused by Cosmic Rays and the Sun – Not Humans, 26 August 2011, by Lawrence Solomon (The Financial Post – Sott) - New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism , 27 July 2011, by James Taylor (Forbes)
YouriCarma 6 months ago
@YouriCarma These are simple minded, mistaken, deluded (or worse) pieces of misdirection and propaganda which have been completely debunked. Are you that thick that you believe 150 years of science can be overturned by opinionated newspaper articles written by at least one stalwart of the denialist Heartland institute - he completely misrepresents what the scientific paper actually says. Don't you realise, you are being taken for a fool by these types who lie and twist for political reasons.
aylesmerep 6 months ago 11
Also the 15 ppm figure is massively misleading. The CO2 emitted by natural processes is indeed much greater than man's but the deceit presented here is not mentioning that natural CO2 absorption processes are even greater than natural emissions. As a consequence, mankind's emissions are actually responsible for ALL the increase in ppm (280->390). The ecosphere absorbs about half of our emissions but the other half makes up 100% of the rise in CO2. It's just about all down to us!
aylesmerep 6 months ago
This video is very misleading. It is based on a previous one where the "teacher's" agenda is clearer.
The ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed low but that doesn't mean it has a low effect. The deceptive use of rice grains covers up that 995,000'ish ppm of the atmosphere is not climate forcing greenhouse gas and so is irrelevant. A more truthful demonstration would show a bowl with about 300,000 CO2 grains in a million - the other 700k would be water vapour (a greenhouse feedback).
aylesmerep 6 months ago
If this woman is a teacher, I feel bad for her students.
YTEdy 7 months ago 2
You seem to believe that just because a number is small, it can be disregarded. I can assure you that this small increase globally is causing the climate change that we are now experiencing and will continue to experience in the future. Stop kidding yourself with ridiculous non-arguments such as this.
campainr 7 months ago
Erm.......................I'm afraid your arguments are incorrect. All this demonstrates is how much CO2 is currently in the atmosphere and how much of that was contributed by human activity. You seem to be completely ignorant of the science that underlines this data. 96% of natural CO2 is balanced through exchanges between atmosphere and earth, while the 4% contribution by humanity is unbalanced and rising. This 4% in CO2 is enough to cause devastating climate change on the earth and is rising.
campainr 7 months ago
Funny how this video has 13 dislikes (as of my viewing it). Do those 13 people not believe in math? That's all she's demonstrating in the video.
rgonz71 8 months ago in playlist CO2 & Climate Change--the big lie
@rgonz71 her math is wrong. Also, rice is a bad medium. our atmosphere is not like rice, it's much more like water. If you were to take a gallon of water and put 390 PPM of red dye in it and put that next to a gallon of water with 260-280 PPM of red dye in it - then you would have a valid atmospheric comparison. Also, where did she get 15 PPM is the man made change. The man made change is 110-130 PPM depending on which starting point you use.
YTEdy 7 months ago
@rgonz71 She is lying with "statistics". That is what she is doing in this video. The most deceitful bit is the "4% emissions translates to only 15ppm". She is either being very stupid, deceitful or she has no idea what these figures represent.
aylesmerep 6 months ago
@rgonz71 The people who disliked this video are people that understand how deceitful and seriously wrong she is, wittingly or unwittingly.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 months ago
Thank you very much for doing this video for us.
str8gds 8 months ago
hoochie mama! you are sexy, makes me want to go back to school!
pherronii 8 months ago
You can't ADD heats, so even if it did absorb and 'keep' heat it, it would have little effect. Think about it. When you go into a dark cave with a torch, the light doesn't add until the room is bright and fully visible. Same with a flame. The stored by the Earth heat CANNOT physically add to the already there heat. If this was the case, our energy problems would be solved.
Nice video by the way!
SomethingAnon 10 months ago
You are making an elementary mistake. The water vapor is effectively determined by the CO2 because water vapor only lasts a few days before it gets rained out. So its equilibrium level is determined by temperature. It amplifies the effect of CO2 and that is what determines the global temperature.
Zantorc 1 year ago
@Zantorc You are making am elementary mistake. The Sun and its effect on the oceans determine the climate. The Atmosphere cools the planet during daytime and keeps it warm at night. Heat only moves from hot to cold. Therefore Carbon dioxide would transmit its heat to space during the day.
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444 I always look at both sides of the argument, which convinces me the skeptics are wrong.
If your skepticism is faith rather than evidence based you wont want to look at counter arguments. So the questions I have for you is. Is it worth my while pointing out the errors in the skeptic arguments? Would you change your opinion if they turn out to be wrong? How many times do the best skeptic arguments have to be shown to be false, before you suspect that you might be being duped?
Zantorc 10 months ago
@Zantorc And what do you think that i have been doing? Yes I too bought the Greenhouse theory like many others who have been brainwashed by the green propaganda machine. So where is the error in what I said? Can you not see that man's influence is dwarfed by natural influences on the climate? Do you not think that you are the one being duped?
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444 An argument is a 2 way process going back and forth. You seem to have stopped at skeptic arguments without subjecting them to any scrutiny. There is no excuse for that, web sites exist which specialise in collecting the latest skeptic arguments, and pointing out the errors in them. I go out of my way to study skeptic arguments (I haven't seen one yet which withstood scruitiny). I don't want AGW any more than you, but I'm not prepared to delude myself that it isn't happening. ...
Zantorc 10 months ago
@Zantorc .Continued... Phrases like 'bought the greenhouse theory', 'brainwashed' and 'green propaganda machine' show you as ideologically wedded to one side of the argument. The debate in the scientific arena has been settled for years, which is why the fossil fuel industry has tried to turn it into an ideological debate in the public arena. There is no point in me telling you where you are wrong, if your opinion is not evidence based, being shown to be wrong isn't going to change it.
Zantorc 10 months ago
@Zantorc I am afraid you already are deluded.
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444 My opinion is based on the scientific evidence and I would change it in an instant if the evidence indicated. In response to my question 'would you change you opinion if your skeptic argument was shown to be wrong', you didn't seem able to answer. So who is deluded?
But let me leave you with this thought. Being cynical and realizing that facts and evidence wont change your views, I am delighted you are championing a very foolish skeptic argument. Please spread it widely.
Zantorc 10 months ago
There's no conspiracy. AGW is about Marxists doing what they've been doing for many years only more vigorously. They tried pumping the global warming shit into my head at school in the 80s. Then after being discredited they gave it rest for a while and 20 years later they're trying again but with drastically more propaganda targetted at kids in schools and on TV.
vidmanx0 1 year ago
This video is flat out wrong. It isn't taking into account that human annual emissions accumulate. We haven't been doing this for a single year. Over 200 years our steady trickle of extra CO2 has bumped CO2 levels up 39% to highs not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.
That bag of 385 red rice (now should be 390) used to only be 280 in the 1800s.
Also all that white rice are irrelevant as they are not greenhouse gases. Only the colored rice count in terms of climate change.
cthulhu11111111 1 year ago
You seem very passionate. But, I think your passion has been falsely inflamed. You see, when science finds a problem with too much of a chemical, money from the industry that produces too much of that chemical always creates a PR campaign to impugn the science.
Is that 15 CO2 ppm from fossil fuel *per-year*, because you are comparing it to the *total*, which is illogical.
anderwan 1 year ago
these are units of measurement, not units of mass! Oxygen and Nitrogen make up the majority of the atmosphere. they are not greenhouse gases. though i'd expect as much from those who fiendishly try to refute anthropogenic global warming.
cleanloader 1 year ago
@cleanloader why is there global warming on Mars? Are those Martians secretly building thousands of subterranean coal power plants?
ivangrozny27 1 year ago
@ivangrozny27 actually, Mars' atmosphere is comprised mostly of CO2. it is actually 95.32% carbon dioxide and 2.7% nitrogen AND it has a much thinner atmosphere than the Earth's.
also, the temperatures of mars varies from -207 degrees F to 80 degrees F.
cleanloader 1 year ago
What scientific consensus would that be? The lies from the University of East Anglia? The 'oversights' perhaps of the IPCC? The false NASA data? The film from well known scientist Al Gore that was taken to court and found guilty of 9 major lies? I think we all know what climate change is about and people are finally waking up as attested to by the collapse of the Chicago Carbon Exchange. QED
philj321 1 year ago
Since we're on the subject of rice, maybe you should put 12 -15 parts per million of ricin into your body and see how you feel. You're right though. Let's keep digging carbon out of the ground and spraying it into the atmosphere. Let's also ignore scientific consensus on the matter. Even if there is a 0.1% chance that humans are putting the earth on a path to catastrophic climate change, then we must wage war on climate change. How did I even get to this terrible place on the internet?
billsnitzer 1 year ago
@billsnitzer I think 12 - 15 brain cells per million are working in your head.
ClimateScam 1 year ago
@ClimateScam Well, that wasn't a nice thing to say. I forgive you though, because I know that my comment made you experience cognitive dissonance. Google that if you don't know what it is. Then google for the NYT op-ed called "Going Cheney on Climate." Then, after that, watch this vid: /watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
billsnitzer 1 year ago
@billsnitzer Wait a minute there...you said - "Even if there is a 0.1% chance that humans are putting the earth on a path to catastrophic climate change, then we must wage war on climate change."
No. If the evidence overwhelmingly points to it (AGW) being a complete scam, backed up by dishonest and falsified science, then we should use our god-given brains and remember that the Earth's clinmate has, and always will, change and vary over time.
Yes Virginia, there IS a global conspiracy...;)
hearts0ngs 1 year ago
Comment removed
melanoficus 1 year ago
@billsnitzer Google historic CO2 atmosphere levels. It is well established that much much higher CO2 levels existed in the atmosphere in time past. This would support the huge amount of vegetation that dinosaurs needed to eat. Most of this carbon got removed from the carbon cycle & became unavailable when it was buried & converted to subterranean coal and oil. Go study the CO2/Carbon cycle — earth's? life carrying capacity is in proportion to the available CO2/carbon. Viva — release more CO2!
melanoficus 1 year ago
Well that sorts that then!
nickcdart 1 year ago
I am taking this film as a message to the individual!
It's asking YOU! Are YOU feeling guilty???
There is not a pair off longs in this world, that can be held accountable for the amount of CO2 that is found to be to much!
My personall ACTIVITY's, I live as aware as possible, do not contribute to the totall off CO2. OK, I ride a bike, riding this bike I will turn oxigin into CO2 but YOU WILL NOT MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT'S BAD! I AM NOT FEELING GUILTY ANY MORE, DEU TO THIS FILM! But I do consume!?
078Sjoerd83 1 year ago
Haha, hello, I'm Sjoerd from the Netherlands. How am I to interpret this little film?
And it's reactions?
To 1ElisaPardo: Nice, now I've seen the emmisionchart. I mean; It's not my breath! I don't own a car, I've got the green energy at home, I don't even have a polluting job and the chart still sets standards in international principals in sted off multinationals who are internationall! Get it? It's not country's that have extensive emmisions, it's multi-nationals! Sorry for poor English!
078Sjoerd83 1 year ago
As a skeptic I'll concede the bare figures mean nothing without the potential changes from them, although man's small contribution is significant as too marginal to be significant or measurable in its effects.
But all is not as it seems. Time-Life published the 1961 CO2 concentration in 'Matter' back then as not a fixed but variable norm, between 260 and 400ppm. Had the current 390 or so been measured then before any agenda no one would have said a thing besides being on the high end.
satguru 1 year ago
A bit misleading isn't it?
Not just because the 4% figure is not indicative of man's total contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations (as has already been pointed out), but also because most of the gases in the atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, argon... all those big bags of rice) are not greenhouse gases, so the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 by volume is irrelevant to ones "carbon footprint". Only the warming effect of the extra CO2 is notable.
Mechness 1 year ago
@Mechness Didnt you note the water vapour bags of rice (the blue ones) represent the largest component of green house gas? The 15 grains of red (man made CO2) are small when compared to the natural emission of CO2. You totally missed the point, even if you cut out the 15 grains of man made CO2 by 100% (i.e. cut man's emssion to zero) it would hardly effect the total amount of CO2. Its really simple, and irrefutable.
Plants & ocean algae have a huge capacity to take up man's puny output of CO2.
melanoficus 1 year ago
@melanoficus It is easy to refute: Man has already increased CO2 concentration by a third. That is a significant amount and the rate of increase is still accelerating. Atmospheric water vapour concentration is not relevant; it can only be increased or deceased by increasing or decreasing the temperature of the atmosphere. This makes water vapour an amplifier of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The biosphere can absorb some excess CO2, but that is already taken off the totals.
Mechness 1 year ago
@melanoficus
"Plants & ocean algae have a huge capacity to take up man's puny output of CO2."
Plants and ocean algae might be able to absorb some of our additional CO2, but they fail to absorb it all. CO2 has risen 39% since the industrial revolution to a level not seen for hundreds of thousands of years.
cthulhu11111111 1 year ago
And what about feedback and tipping points. Permafrost is falling apart.
co2 is stronger then those rise, and methane is even 30 times stronger as co2. If those red rise are blocking more heat as the white you cant compare them like that also. And those methane are insane, 30 times stronger (as co2). So there like multi times stronger as the white.
cypress1337 1 year ago 3
but if we start by taxing everyone 1500 annually for the carbon footprint we can reduce that to at least 14 parts and remove a whole grain of rice!
Danster82 1 year ago 2
Great work ElisaPardo.
MrDavewane 1 year ago
You should concentrate on the jets spraying clouds all over North America and figure out what particulate i being dispersed before blaming individuals just trying to survive. Blame the monopolies that give the planet only damaging ways to survive through commerce. Good effort but you need to address the airlines and jets that directly effect the heating of the planet.
STEVEDIGIBOYtv 1 year ago
@STEVEDIGIBOYtv they're called chemtrails. Look at thousands of videos here. They have aluminum and barium and other poisons in them. There are people all over getting sick with asthma and other ling diseases all on the rise. They are lying if they say global warming is the reason for them. The normal contrail disappears after a short while leaving a tail. Chemtrails leave a long trail miles long that spread out blocking the sun and turning the sky overcast. It's not for good. Nefarious reasons!
zenman44 1 year ago
thank you!
thereallyamazingone 1 year ago
@Achara : That the stratosphere cooled is just one successul prediction of greenhouse gas theory. More CO2 insulates the stratosphere from the warm surface and troposphere. Hence it cools and radiates less energy to space. The shortwave solar input, however, remains constant. So there is an energy imbalance and the surface and troposphere warm up until enough energy can escape in between the greenhouse gas absorption bands and a new radiative balance is restored. This is quite uncontroversial.
houlepn 1 year ago
How much (in litres or something) is one million parts of air?
TheAmazingFuturist 1 year ago
@TheAmazingFuturist "Parts per million by volume" is just a way of dividing something, like one half is one of two equal parts, one tenth is one out of ten equal parts, one percent is one out of 100 equal parts.
Those one million grains of rice represent the entire atmosphere of the earth, a point I wish I had made more clear. Weather mixes the gasses up, of course. At ordinary temperatures and pressures, there are equal numbers of gas molecules in every (equal) volume unit, so we are (cont)
1ElisaPardo 1 year ago
@1ElisaPardo (cont) really just counting to find the FRACTION of each of the different gasses. By the way, I never intended that this little video would be on the internet, I just made it for some others in case they wanted to do a GOOD job instead, using glass beads instead of rice. A lot I would have put in (which would probably have made it boring!), like the rice representing the entire atmosphere, is missing.
1ElisaPardo 1 year ago
@1ElisaPardo A little clarification: my cyberspace friends liked the video as is, and wanted to put it on their website, climate realists (where you can find an accompanying article for the video). I was surprised they liked it and agreed they could post it.
1ElisaPardo 1 year ago
@1ElisaPardo Hi I've read and heard in science magazines even before the global warming scare that humans can cause global temperatures to rise through CO2 to dangerous levels. Where did you get your information that humans give off only 4% of the total global footprint? The more (unbiased) references, the better.
dhinge 1 year ago
@dhinge YouTube will not let me put the link here, so I will add it to the information box at the upper right for this video. It is from the US Department of Energy.
Use the slider on the chart and in the lower right hand corner you will find total CO2 worldwide emissions from energy use, 2008 is the latest year they have. It's about 32 gigatons, to be generous. Now, if you know the mass of the atmosphere, you can back-calculate from 385 ppm to find total CO2. (cont.)
1ElisaPardo 1 year ago
@1ElisaPardo Well, howdy doody, YouTube has changed its format and the extra info is under the screen and you just click on it. Please see calculations I've shown previously, below, showing that total CO2 is about 2700 Gt. 32/2700 gives only about 1.2 percent human contribution to atmospheric CO2, from fossil fuel use alone, for 2008. Going up to 108 Gt of CO2 from man (which must include agriculture, manufacturing, etc.): 108/2700 gives the familiar 4 percent.
1ElisaPardo 1 year ago
I had to divided the comment in to three because of the legnth. Hope it's understandeble anyway.
cistizzie 1 year ago
...There is som much wishful thinking by the people that if someone tells them thiers nothing to worry about they'll gladly accept it as a truth.
cistizzie 1 year ago 2
...I'm all for questioning, but really, who would be benefitting trying to 'con us' in to living more envirmently friendly? If it were the goverments they would not be as passive towards global warming as they are. And it sure as hell isnt the rich and powerful oil companies.
YES, governments WILL exploit this fear to get more control over us, but it doesnt mean that it isnt real...
cistizzie 1 year ago
This smells of propaganda.
Who buys a huge amount of rice, colors it in three diffrent colors, purchases a buch of ziplocks, to make a 2 minute video on youtube.
Also the video equppiment is pretty good.
People always talk about the "few scientists that are not controlled by the goverment". Ever stopped i thought that it might be the few scientists that are bought by the coorporations that speak up agianst the facts?
...
cistizzie 1 year ago
Precisely! The lower troposphere is where the warming is happening. The stratosphere has been cooling for years as CO2 levels increased there, irradiating more heat to outer space.
Actually, greenhouse gases are cooling gases, not warming ones. They don't "trap" heat and keep it indefinitely but radiates their energy in microseconds. Greenhoue gases merely redistribute heat around the planet making temperatures more uniform.
Achuara 1 year ago
Great post. I really like the way you show the ppm visually.
FJBonline 2 years ago
I think water vapor average concentration in the whole atmosphere may be closer to 0.25% by mass or 0.4% by mole fraction (=0.32% by mass), according to two different sources. 1% to 4% is an estimate for the low troposhere only.
houlepn 2 years ago
Suppose you and your husband share a joint bank account with initially $280,000 in it. Every week he makes one deposit and one withdrawal about 145~155K$ each. You yourself deposit ~$7,000 every week and never make any withdrawal. After 31 weeks the new balance is $390,000. The increase is just half your total deposits. You claim responsibility for 100% of the savings. Your husband claims that he is responsible for 95% of the deposits and hence for 95% of the savings. Who is right?
houlepn 2 years ago
I think you meant to say he makes one deposit of 145K and one withdrawal of 141.5K, otherwise, the 10K he pulls out per week, as you have it (145-155) will cause a net loss of 3K per week, offset by the 7K deposit of the wife, with the the balance 187K after 31 weeks. I will refrain from asking your political affiliation. Each dollar that is spent has identical purchasing power in the market, just as each CO2 molecule is indistinguishable to the absorption mechanisms of the earth.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
Oh wait, the withdrawal would have to be 148.5, resulting in a net deposit of 3.5K per week, 108.5K after 31 weeks, and 388.5K total for the account. The money that stays in could be thought of as a carbon sink, that would be a decent analogy.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo That's correct. So, your husband withdraws more in the account than he deposits. You now this because your net contribution is positive and the accumulation lesser than yours. He is the global "natural" net sink in this analogy. You yourself are responsible for just 5% if the total deposits (analog to the 4% IPCC figure). But who is fully responsible for the savings (accumulation)?
houlepn 2 years ago
@houlepn That was messed up, sorry. "So, your husband withdraws more from the account than he deposits. You know this because your net contribution is positive and yet the accumulation is smaller than your contribution..."
houlepn 2 years ago
The main argument of your video is that the small number of red rice grains means that we don't have to worry about this part of the atmosphere. I still contend that this is innumerate.
It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.
Could you comment please on the general numerical point you are making rather than (or as well as) the actual numbers?
SciFive 2 years ago
Fossil fuel use/human activity simply cannot account for much of the CO2. Also, CO2 levels rise, yet temperatures decline year after year: theory dead. Neither worry about the CO2 level, nor wrecking our economy with cap and trade schemes will affect CO2 level significantly. The real danger is CO2 below 200 ppmv, plants would die. CO2 is singled out for blame only because it can be linked to the combustion of fossil fuels. The scam depends on creating a false emergency, guilt, then a tax trap.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo The "real danger" of CO2 levels dropping below 200ppm seems quite imaginary. What would suddenly cause that? You video doesnt address the cause of current warming. It rather concerns the cause of CO2 increases. Even if climate scientists were dead wrong about AGW, we could still be fully responsible for the CO2 increase, as some scientifically competent AGW skeptics believe we indeed are. You haven't justified the claim that we are responsible for just 4% of the increase.
houlepn 2 years ago
You simply ignore three independent scientific proofs--(1) from basic accounting of all known sinks and sources, (2) from variations in 14C/13C/12C atmospheric ratios and (3) from O2 depletion--that fossil fuel emissions caused all or most of the increase. Instead you have made self-contradictory claims implying that oceans (plus biota?) have been, during the same time span, both net sinks and net sources of atmospheric CO2. This seems quite illogical.
houlepn 2 years ago
@houlepn Regarding you recent objection, the CO2/Temp lag issue is well understood and acknowledged by mainstream climate science. SciFive's comments are correct and to the point. However the lag phenomenon does seem to kill your own theory that the huge recent 38% increase was caused by some natural temperature change. The past lags after glacial age terminations average 800 years. But there was no commensurate temperature increase 800 years ago. There hasn't been any in the last 10 millenias.
houlepn 2 years ago
About 800 years ago, there was the Medieval Warm Period, which the Mann hockey stick graph attempts to erase in Orwellian fashion.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
Oceans certainly could be both a source and a sink, that would depend on the temperature, a point I have been trying to get across.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo Oceans can't have been both a net source and a net sink over the same period. That would mean their CO2 content would have both increased and decreased over that period. This is a logical impossibility. Either they contributed CO2 to the rest of the biosphere or they mitigated the effect of other net sources such as our own emissions. You can have it both ways. You also ignore the isotopic and O2 depletion evidence. Is the MWP explanation of the CO2 increase a personal hypothesis?
houlepn 2 years ago
"You [can't] have it both ways..." Of course.
houlepn 2 years ago
The climate is exceedingly complex and no one should imagine that it can be described in either/or terms, it is full of non-linear processes all going on at the same time. I've noticed that experts use phrases like "The more we learn, the more we realize how much more there is to learn," and "We must admit we don't know." People with superficial knowledge are certain of it.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo The three independent demonstrations that we are responsible for the recent CO2 increase have nothing to do with climate. You claimed that our emissions wouldn't have built up because the oceans must have soaked the excess up; and that the recent accumulation was temperature driven, resulting in net outgassing... But then the oceans would have failed to perform as net sinks. But they obviously did. Else the accumulation would be larger than our emissions. But it isn't. What gives?
houlepn 2 years ago
@houlepn So, suppose your MWP hypothesis is correct. The temperature change 1000 years ago triggered the recent release of ~110ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere. But we ourselves produced enough to account for 200ppmv. Shouldn't the total increase be 310 ppmv (and hence the total now be 510 ppmv)? Should we not rather say that oceans *would* have soaked up most our emissions but owing to MWP delayed effects they only soaked half of them? That still would make us responsible for 100% of the increase.
houlepn 2 years ago
@houlepn The current concentration would be 280ppm + 200ppm + 110ppm = 590ppm; not 510ppm as stated, sorry.
houlepn 2 years ago
What gives? The earth gives . . . off CO2. Think of all the decaying vegetation in uninhabitable regions. Remember that the existence of a cycle doesn't imply a perfect equilibrium like in a closed system. Sources are constantly coming into new equilibria with their surroundings. It's the tendency toward equilibrium (entropy) that drives those processes, but they constantly change, just like the climate.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo What caused so much vegetation to decay since 1750 such that atmospheric CO2 rose to levels unprecedented in 450,000 years? Also, you still don't face up to the logical contradiction of your explanation. If the totality of natural carbon flows (from oceans, vegetation, whatever) had resulted in a positive fraction of the net cumulative increase in CO2 atmospheric content, then all our emissions, which already account for twice the total increase, would have magically disappeared.
houlepn 2 years ago
@houlepn Yes, the Earth+Sun system is out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Is it thereby impossible that humans be pulling the natural carbon cycle out of balance? Could not our emitting CO2 in the atmosphere at twice the rate it has been accumulating in recent decades be responsible for the current CO2 imbalance? You believe decaying vegetation can be responsible, but fossil fuel burning and land use change can't possibly be? Is this too small? But it's currently twice the amount of the imbalance!
houlepn 2 years ago
@houlepn Sorry, I meant to say : If the totality of natural carbon flows (from oceans, vegetation, whatever) had resulted in a positive fraction of the net cumulative increase in CO2 atmospheric content, then at least half our emissions, which already account for twice the total increase, would have magically disappeared (since natural flows were also positive contributors). If A+B=C; A and C both are positive; and A>C; then B can't also be positive.
houlepn 2 years ago
I really think we are starting to go around in circles here. One factor that has not been addressed is the residence time of CO2 in the air, and there is wild disagreement about that, but a good, recent guess is 5-6 years. The point I make is that if you carefully tally all that man could be responsible for, it is but a small fraction of the (real!) increase. You have not shown why anthropogenic CO2 would have a different residence time as any other.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo The residence time results from mixing. It has no effect on balance. This is a common fallacy. Modify the banking account analogy with a pot on the dining room table and $1 bills. Your husband usually picks large amount and puts back slightly smaller amounts. You yourself only put very small amounts. You are thus fully responsible for any positive imbalance. But individual dollar bills have short residence time. A majority of the bills in the pot were put there by your husband.
houlepn 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo Incidentally, there is fast mixing with oceanic top layers but much slower mixing with deep layers. So, residence time in "atmosphere+top layers" is much longer. This is why the anthropogenic isotopic CO2 signals is as strong as it is in spite of mixing. This is of course accounted for in isotope ratio studies. And then there are O2 depletion measurements that only depend on the imbalance.
houlepn 2 years ago
The cause of current warming. Hmm, hasn't it been cooling for about 8 years now? Let's stay in touch with reality. I mention CO2 below 200 (of course, unlikely) to point up that it is beneficial and essential, as we were supposed to learn in elementary school. There's precious little of it. There's quite a huge safety factor if it increases; such increase is positive.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo The Medieval Warm Period was a warming of at most 0.75 degree. Past warming in the last 450,000 years have been associated with long term (in the time frame of millennia) increases in CO2 concentrations at the rate of 8-10ppmv per degree of warming. If the same natural mechanism were at work, we should expect it to cause a 6ppm long term increase. The increase is now 110ppmv and it occurred within two centuries. Concentrations over 300ppm never occurred in the last 450 millennia.
houlepn 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo YouTube orders more recent comments in reverse chronological order. Older comments are correctly threaded but only the five most highly rated in each thread may show up according to user preference. If you click "View all ### comments", they are then all correctly threaded, I think. This is a far from ideal forum format. Also, I commented on your reply to SciFive.
houlepn 2 years ago
Your conclusion: 'because CO2 is a trace gas it is not a problem' is not only wrong, it is innumerate.
Numerate people see this the other way round:
'It is BECAUSE there is so little carbon dioxide that it is a problem. It means: a) CO2 is potent stuff; b) it doesn't take much for human activity to have a significant impact on the quantity.'
That is: because the numbers are small, the problem is big.
Also - anthropgenic CO2 is 28% of the current total, not 4%.
SciFive 2 years ago 2
I showed two sample calculations below for the percent of human-sourced CO2, using gigaton numbers from the IPCC 2007 report, and the simple meaning of 385 ppmv to determine total Gt of CO2. Can you show me the calculation that results in 28% from the Gt of human-sourced CO2 given in the IPCC report?
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo Your calculation was meaningless because 4% is our share of the CO2 sources, not accounting for sinks at all, while 28% is the fraction of atmospheric CO2 that was added since 1750. Apples and oranges. To take 4% of the total atmospheric CO2 and call it our share of the increase makes no sense. A business can turn profitable if you increase just one source of income. This new source can then account for 100% of the future profits even while it represents just 4% of the raw incomes.
houlepn 2 years ago
Further, if you really want to know and understand how climate scientists arrive at the conclusion that we are entirely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the last 250 years you probably ought to read the relevant section of the full report. This is section 7.3, beginning at page 511.
houlepn 2 years ago
Concentration now: 388 ppmv (3,028 Gt CO2)
Pre-industrial concentration: 280 ppmv (2,185 Gt CO2)
The difference is all anthropogenic - the concentration before 1750 was very stable and has never been over 300 ppmv in the past 400,000 years (Vostok).
Thus our contribution is 28% or 108 grains of rice.
The cumulative emissions from fossil fuels since 1750 are 1,181 Gt CO2 (source: CDIAC) - equiv. to 151 ppmv. Much of this has been absorbed by sinks - the main ones being the oceans and biomass.
SciFive 2 years ago 2
I don't think we can say that the CO2 level before 1750 was very stable, and the Vostok ice cores show this, see
watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ
and look at the graph at 4 minutes and 4 seconds. You can see big shifts in the CO2 level, which *follow* temperature changes. The hockey stick graph gives an erroneous idea of an idyllic perfect equilibrium of nature that's been recently disrupted, and is an attempt to erase the Medieval Warm Period.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
There were CO2 variations (from about 180ppm to 280pp) matching 10Kelvin temperature changes over cycles of glaciation with time periods of tens of millennia each. This makes for 10ppm per degree of temp change. (Short term adjustments were merely 2ppm per degree). The temp increase in the last 250 years is 0.6 degree. It would only account for a long term CO2 adjustment of 6ppm. The sudden rise to 380ppm is unprecedented in the last few million years. Most of it occurred in recent decades.
houlepn 2 years ago
The very large increase (+38%) in atmospheric CO2 partial pressure more than offsets the small temperature increase (+0.2%), making the oceans a net sink. This explains why while the fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 totaled 1,181 Gt CO2, the 108ppm CO2 increase in the atmosphere only represents 72% of this amount. Where did the extra CO2 emissions go? The oceans and biota together were a net sink. It is thus impossible that they were at the same time a net source, as you would seem to suggest.
houlepn 2 years ago
This fear about an "unprecedented" CO2 level is simply a lack of basic information. Ian Plimer's Nov. 19 speech at climaterealists. An excerpt:
The ice sheets show us that carbon dioxide peaks at
least 800 years after temperature peaks and geology
shows us that five of the six great ice ages were at
times when carbon dioxide was far higher than at
present. In past times of high carbon dioxide up to
1,000 times higher than at present, there was no
runaway greenhouse and no acid oceans.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo Please have a look at "Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core" hosted at CDIAC. Look at the graph and numbers. "The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." (That's 420,000 years) This discussion and your video aren't about climate. The topic is CO2 concentrations and our responsibility for the sudden increase, which happens to be in proportion with (and yet smaller than) our emissions.
houlepn 2 years ago
Also, the "great ice ages" Plimer seems to refer to occured in Precambrian times more than 600 million years ago, not the recent Pleistocene for which we have ice core records. So, yeah, present CO2 levels aren't wholly unprecedented. But I said the present levels were "unprecedented in the last few million years", which is the opinion of mainstream climate scientists and geologists. Nothing Plimer said contradicts this claim.
houlepn 2 years ago
Yes CO2 peaks 800 years after temperature peaks, but it is completely wrong to conclude from that that CO2 does not cause temp to increase. All it indicates is that there is a causal link the other way too.
We are seeing one mechanism for that now. Increased temp in the arctic is causing CH4 emissions from (what used to be) permafrost. In a few hundred years this will be CO2.
Because the causal link is two way it creates a positive feedback loop.
SciFive 2 years ago 2
thank you for taking the time to explain this.
largehosier 2 years ago
Regarding the "Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2", have a look at the paper with this title. (Available online)Oceans have taken up about half our emissions. Else the atmospheric increase would have been about 200ppm rather than just 100ppm. Consider also that volcanos collectively don't spit out CO2 at even 1 percent the rate we currently do.
houlepn 2 years ago
Where does this 4% CO2 increase figure come from? Most sources I found state 36% to 40% increase since 1750 because of human acrivity. This is significant. Comparision with N2 and O2 isn't relevant. N2 and O2 aren't greenhouse gases.
houlepn 2 years ago
All those white grains stand for the N2 and O2. Total CO2 level is certainly still rising, mostly from the oceans, decaying plant material, the occasional volcano, 96% from natural sources that people can't influence. Burning of fossil fuels contributes only about 4%, this data comes from IPCC summary report, however they give only tons, not concentrations. Too bad CO2 won't cause any warming (we could use that!), but the good thing is that it will increase crop yields.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
Where did you find this in the IPCC summary report? I don't see it. In the first page it states that the rise was from 280ppm pre-industrial levels to 379ppm in 2005. That's a 35% increase. They claim that most of it comes from fossil fuel use and some more from land-use changes. Maybe you confused total CO2 sources with sources of CO2 increase?
houlepn 2 years ago
Older IPCC reports, from say 1990, before the hockey stick nonsense should be used. The gigatons of fossil fuels burned annually, globally comes out to about 2 ppmv added per year. Humans just aren't that big compared to the oceans, etc. It takes a while for this CO2 to go through the carbon cycle, so we can only take credit for about 4% of the CO2 in the air. Temperature is the biggest factor: when the oceans warm, the CO2 comes out as a result of that, like when carbonated drinks warm up.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo So, you agree that it is 2ppm per year that we are responsible for. Hence, your total 14ppm represents the increase we have been responsible for producing in the last 7 years. Why did you choose arbitrarily to mention our contribution for just the last 7 years (and failed to specify that this is your baseline) ? 2ppm per year (in recent years) still is consistent with the the 35% increase since pre-industrial times until 2005. That's 99 grains of rice. Don't you agree?
houlepn 2 years ago
Don't forget that in the carbon cycle, carbon is being captured by plants, crustaceans, and other carbon sinks: it doesn't just pile up. If the CO2 level is increasing, look to the earth as the source, not man. What we need is the perspective to see how tiny we are in comparison to the earth, we are just not that much of a force. One day I'm going to look up the total biomass of all the insects on the earth compared to that of all the people. It must be a many hundred-fold difference.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo You now claim that we are not responsible for the 99ppm increase at all? Why then claim 12ppm to 15ppm in the video title? Why would carbon sinks necessarily prevent a cumulative 99ppm increase from human sources and not also prevent a 12 to 15ppm increase in your view? Can you quote the IPCC report you mentioned as your source of the 12 to 15ppm figure or provide a page number? You can't justify a specific quantitative estimate on mere qualitative grounds and/or personal opinion.
houlepn 2 years ago
Here is how you would do this calculation. IPCC 2007 report gives 26.4 gigatons CO2 from fossil fuels and 5.9 Gt from land use change, total 32.3 Gt CO2 from man. I used 4X10^6 Gt for mass of the troposphere(=80% of atmosphere). If .0385%(= 385ppm)of troposphere is CO2, mult by mass ratio of 44/29 of CO2 to air, and mult by mass of trop,we will get 2337 Gt total CO2 from all sources. Now 32.3/2337 gives a low 1.4%. Other sources say 108 Gt CO2 from man and 2700 Gt total CO2 . . . .continued
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
Their figure of 108 Gt CO2 from human activity must include manufacturing, etc. There is a nice agreement with my figure of 2337 Gt for total CO2. 108/2700 gives, voila, 4%. You can see that these results differ, but are in the right ball park. I don't have great math aptitude, but I can visualize and compare these quantities. I think any high school graduate can develop this much perspective. Perspective, that's what's needed.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo You are comparing the annual anthropogenic CO2 production with the total mass of atmospheric CO2. But this ratio is meaningless. It doesn't tell us what fraction of the increase of the last few centuries or decades we are responsible for. That's like comparing the profits of a business in its lifetime with its current annual sales revenues for one item. We are interested in is cumulative net profit margin, not brute incomes. Only the former figure cumulates in the bank account.
houlepn 2 years ago
(Continued...) You earlier suggested that our CO2 outputs do not pile up. But do you believe they pile up for exactly one year, no more and no less? That would justify your 4% ratio. 35% rather represents the increase we are responsible for since 1750 (until 2005), which isn't simply related to the current annual rate of production in the way you think. Our production increased much more than other natural sources did.
houlepn 2 years ago
Your line of reasoning assumes that man-made CO2 has different chemical properties than "natural" CO2 and inexplicably hangs around, unlike "natural" sourced CO2. There may be an isotope difference, but there is no chemical difference in the subsequent fate of any CO2 in the carbon cycle. For man to be contributing 35% CO2, it would have to be at about a nine-fold higher rate than now.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo You suggested the increase comes from ocean outgasing. But the atmospheric increase has been so large that the ocean surface concentrations have also increased. These measurements conflict with your hypothesis. Further, the isotopic ratio 12C/13C confirms that the atmospheric increase comes from fossil fuel and lost biomass (wood burning etc.). These aren't assumptions. They are empirical measurements. See the RealClimate site, index section: How do we Know Recent CO2 Increases...
houlepn 2 years ago
I'm surprised you would suggest RealClimate as a source, being in the same camp as Jones, Mann, and Pachauri, who seems to be getting caught out in a new lie every week, and with calls for his resignation becoming ever more insistent. I think I'm done talking with you, but this does confirm my plans to set up a lab entitled "Buffering Capacity of Ocean Water" for when the students at my daughter's school get to acids and bases, prob in May.
1ElisaPardo 2 years ago
@1ElisaPardo The main point simply is that since the CO2 concentration in the oceans' surface layers has steadily increased in recent decades, the excess atmosheric CO2 wouldn't come from there. Consider also that many AGW skeptics do not even dispute that we are mainly responsible for the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2. You ought to have a look at the article I mentioned and assess the data and arguments before assuming its authors must be dishonest. It's a short and informative read.
houlepn 2 years ago