Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[greatcloudlives]

Type in your search engine - the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News

It's basic biology plants and animals decay release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

[[serious]]

The mathmatics of leaf decay

You seem to be double posting a lot. The same argument/link only needs one post.

Let's deal with a hypothetical first. Say we have a bathtub. The faucet is on, but the drain is open. Water flows in, water flows down the drain. The water level remains constant. Now, if we open up the tap more, two things can happen. If the drain has excess capacity, the water level may stay the same. If it doesn't, the water may begin to rise. If the drain doesn't have additional unused capacity, the tub may fill up and overflow. Is this my fault for opening the tap more? Well, yeah. There was a steady-state, I did something that disrupted that, and then there was a consequence. The percent of the change in relation to the previous steady state is irrelevant. I'm the one who opened up the tap more, so I overflowed the tub. Are we agreed so far?

 

[greatcloudlives]

CO2 levels have always been changing , we are near a historical low level today. At 150 ppm plants are starving. So the CO2 level now is a good level for the Earth for the growth of plants. There have been nine warming events each lasting four or five hundred years. These warmings occur every 1,500 years with great regularity. They are probably a combination of the malancovitch cycling process. Whatever the cause of the warmings are they do exist. We are experiencing one of those now.

The natural causes need to be examined and become separate from the anthropomorphic causes. Then we will know more about what is going on.

As far as your analogy goes, nature is dealing with the increase in the co2 produced by man. The ocean sink and the vegetation sink will settle at a new level the CO2 produced by man will also become stable. There is in the analogy a limit to how much more you can increase the amount of water coming in the tub.

 

[klutedavid]

CO2 levels have always been changing , we are near a historical low level today. At 150 ppm plants are starving. So the CO2 level now is a good level for the Earth for the growth of plants. There have been nine warming events each lasting four or five hundred years. These warmings occur every 1,500 years with great regularity. They are probably a combination of the malancovitch cycling process. Whatever the cause of the warmings are they do exist. We are experiencing one of those now.

The natural causes need to be examined and become separate from the anthropomorphic causes. Then we will know more about what is going on.

As far as your analogy goes, nature is dealing with the increase in the co2 produced by man. The ocean sink and the vegetation sink will settle at a new level the CO2 produced by man will also become stable. There is in the analogy a limit to how much more you can increase the amount of water coming in the tub.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.

Stop burning coal and oil and the problem will disappear.

 

[greatcloudlives]

CO2 levels have always been changing. The past has many times been higher levels than now. Temperature and CO2 levels go up and down. There have been ice age levels of CO2 that have been higher than now. CO2 always lags behind temperature. This is what the ice core samples show. CO2 is not the driver of temperature change it is only a positive feedback.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.

Stop burning coal and oil and the problem will disappear.

The increase in the CO2 level can be caused by deforrestion also and there is no proof of this not being the reason for the warming we are experiencing

 

[greatcloudlives]

The 1,500 years cycle of warming is thouroughly established in the proxy record. The theroy of agw has not been established so far.

 

[Gene2memE]

The increase in the CO2 level can be caused by deforrestion also and there is no proof of this not being the reason for the warming we are experiencing

Well, except for global tree coverage increasing by 7% over the past 35 years, while over the same time the mean global temperature anomaly has grown from about 0.2 C to 0.95 C.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The basic biology of plant decay is that when they decay they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The mathmatics of leaf decay

The percentage of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is ninety percent per year of the carbon dioxide .

And yet again, you demonstrate the lack of minimal competence to operate a web search and incorporate the results into a message board.

We've already dealt with this reply last month (and someone has done so again). What about the other link you failed to provide that (temporarily) killed this thread. (A state it should have stayed in.)

 

[greatcloudlives]

I have not heard anyone yet effectively refute the claim that plant and animal decay are responsible for ninety percent of the CO2 produced every year. Reading on the web I have seen different percentages of CO2 for carbon decay.

 

[greatcloudlives]

1998 was a very high El Nino year so if you discount that we have had a two and a half degrees increase for twenty years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is a classic Gish-gallop - spout a continuous series of fatuous & incorrect 'alternate facts' without stopping to support or defend them, leaving the objections of rational science and reasonable argument unanswered.

It's a dishonest and bankrupt technique.

Just sayin'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have not heard anyone yet effectively refute the claim that plant and animal decay are responsible for ninety percent of the CO2 produced every year. Reading on the web I have seen different percentages of CO2 for carbon decay.

Let's see...

How about posts:

#370 (me w/ sarcasm), #372 (subduction zone), #375 (me attempting to impart understanding of cycles). Your short reply in #373 and SZ's equally short response in #374 are also worth consuming. Conveniently all of these posts are on page 19. Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

Restarting from scratch is not necessary.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The carbon cycle includes the CO2 produced by man. Some or all of the CO2 produced by man is absorbed by nature. The ocean and plants take out the CO2 produced by man or most of it. The carbon cycle is what is causing the CO2 levels to be slower in rising and will become stable as time goes on. This is the reason for the pause in the temperature record. We will be expierexperi the same pause in the CO2 record soon.

 

[Shemjaza]

The carbon cycle includes the CO2 produced by man. Some or all of the CO2 produced by man is absorbed by nature. The ocean and plants take out the CO2 produced by man or most of it. The carbon cycle is what is causing the CO2 levels to be slower in rising and will become stable as time goes on. This is the reason for the pause in the temperature record. We will be expierexperi the same pause in the CO2 record soon.

Except given that there isn't a pause in temperature... this is all a moot point.

Go back to the start of any of the threads of this nonsense and actually read responses.

 

[Strathos]

Hmm, who should I believe: Climate scientists with decades of data behind them, or some guy on the internet who thinks there were satellites in the 1930s and doesn't know how to post a hyperlink?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Water vapor is responsible for the warmer climate much more than CO2. Without the positive feedback of water vapor CO2 would be negligible in the effect of warming. Climatoligest John Bluelme said if you model the atmosphere with all the CO2 removed it's very cool and then increase CO2 by small incriminates and plot it on a graph temperatures increase very much initially but than flatten out. Doubling CO2 from today's contractions holding all other parameters constant has a negligible effect. You need the positive feedback of water vapor to have much impact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Doubling CO2 from today's contractions holding all other parameters constant has a negligible effect.

"today's" is a possessive not a contraction and none of this happens without a 50+% increase in CO2 levels. The feedback is *driven* by the other factor (in this case CO2), it is not self generating.

 

[greatcloudlives]

CO2 levels will never be very high due to the fact that the heat release valve located in the tropics by Richard Linzeden and team discovered in 2001. When the water In the tropics reaches C 28 degrees and above the heat is vented into space. Not to mention the ocean and plants and trees these are also heat sinks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

CO2 levels will never be very high due to the fact that the heat release valve located in the tropics by Richard Linzeden and team discovered in 2001. When the water In the tropics reaches C 28 degrees and above it is vented into space. Not to mention the ocean and plants and trees these are also heat sinks.

None of this makes any sense. The sentence structure alone is confused.

If there is a "heat release valve" it will release heat (or tamp the growth of temperature), it does not by definition do anything to CO2 levels.

When water in the tropics reaches "C 28 degrees" it will not be "vented into space". Even the craziest anti-AGW claims I've read have never spoken about leaking water into space.

If you sink too much heat into the trees they will burn. (Now that doesn't make a lot of sense, but then your post didn't either.)