Global Warming, Make That Climate Change Yeah

[hcap]

Originally Posted by xtb

Of course "me", I thought it was obvious.

Theories and blogs don't impress me much.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-c...-emissions.htm

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).


Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

[hcap]

https://www.newscientist.com/article...iny-to-matter/

Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic’s ‘birth’ warm the world?).

Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

While volcanic emissions are negligible in the short term, over tens of millions of years they do release massive quantities of CO2. But they are balanced by the loss of carbon in ocean sediments subducted under continents through tectonic plate movements. Ultimately, this carbon will be returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

[Tom]

Finally, NFC.

[xtb]

Originally Posted by hcap

https://skepticalscience.com/human-c...-emissions.htm

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).


Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

You're really liking this ocean/CO2 angle! It should keep you busy for a while, everyone needs a hobby.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by xtb

You're really liking this ocean/CO2 angle! It should keep you busy for a while, everyone needs a hobby.

Yep, proving deniers wrong is very rewarding

The Global/CO2/Ocean/ Air/Land cycle is not only a hobby, but true.

And I thought you were beginning to get it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

Finally, NFC.

You are finally admitting, you have No F**k**g Clue. Bout time!

[Stevecsd2]

This gentleman has some interesting points on human caused climate change and what the ramifications could be if we follow the "green new deal" way of dealing with it.

YouTube

[davew]

Originally Posted by Stevecsd2

This gentleman has some interesting points on human caused climate change and what the ramifications could be if we follow the "green new deal" way of dealing with it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA

very nice, but surely you know this is 5 years old and hcap already debunked it, although he is still spouting 97% scientists agree ( not a third of the 11000 climate related abstracts checked felt climate change was due to humans almost unanimously)

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

very nice, but surely you know this is 5 years old and hcap already debunked it, although he is still spouting 97% scientists agree ( not a third of the 11000 climate related abstracts checked felt climate change was due to humans almost unanimously)

To debunk this, we know right off the bat his statement "global warming has stopped" is 100% wrong. Further investigation which only videos don't show, is he has ABSOLUTELY no scientific credentials.

From Wiki....

Steven F. Hayward was born around 1958. In 1980, he earned a BS in business from Lewis and Clark College. He earned a Masters of Arts in government (1984) and a Ph.D. in American Studies (1996) from the Claremont Graduate School.[1][2][3][6][8]

Or

Ph.D., American studies, Claremont Graduate School. [1]
M.A., government, Claremont Graduate School. [1]
B.S., Business and Administrative Studies, Lewis and Clark College. [1]
********************

Whoop-di-do

[Tom]

So wiki has scientific credentials?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

So wiki has scientific credentials?

It is well known that speaker has zero scientific credentials. Google him and see for yourself. Go ahead prove me wrong.

I suspect even your two Bens have a bit more more than he does.

[Tom]

I'll pass, because NFC.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

It is well known that speaker has zero scientific credentials. Google him and see for yourself. Go ahead prove me wrong.

I suspect even your two Bens have a bit more more than he does.

big deal, does that make him wrong? doesn't he have just as many as Bill Nye the propaganda guy?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

big deal, does that make him wrong? doesn't he have just as many as Bill Nye the propaganda guy?

My debunking of this clown was more than no scientific credentials. I said....

To debunk this, we know right off the bat his statement "global warming has stopped" is 100% wrong. Further investigation which only videos don't show, is he has ABSOLUTELY no scientific credentials.

The laast 5 years have been the hottest in recorded history, 2018 the hottest. That video must be circa--earlier than 2013. When you deniers wrongly thought there was a "pause" in warming.
.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

big deal, does that make him wrong? doesn't he have just as many as Bill Nye the propaganda guy?

Many have familiarized themselves with the scientific literature of the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming. Bill Nye draws on that. You gents try to discuss the topic using unsound data and sources. Your latest henchman draws on those faulty sources. And proves he is wrong from jump in that video.