ScooterTDI
New member
Look here:
Hansen et al. "Greenhouse Gas Growth Rates" PNAS, 101(46), 2004.
This was an eye opener - cont.
- Thread starter stugray
- Start date
- Status
Look here:
Hansen et al. "Greenhouse Gas Growth Rates" PNAS, 101(46), 2004.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
This is the other half. The article doesn't say that non-CO2 GHG's are the primary drive, it says that the PROCESSES producing non-CO2 GHG's are the primary drive. Those processes happen to be the burning of fossil fuels. And you guys complain about the media misinterpreting scientific articles.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Ha, that would be a good one too.
ScooterTDI
New member
What? The article goes into alot of deatil about the non-CO2 sources. It has to due with microbial production of methane, ruminants, leaky natural gas pipelines, etc. None of those have to do with burning fossil fuels.
Who needs to work on their reading comprehension now?
Scott
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
What reference? It doesn't matter anyway, CO2 lags at the onset of warming, then has a very tight correlation. I don't understand what you're looking at.
stugray
Premium Member
I am not going to go into detail about my statements ( it would take me an hour to comment on what you guys have posted in 15 minutes & by then there will be another 50 posts ).
However the article does state is there is a HUGE UNCERTAINTY in how all of these different GWGs play together.
An example is WE DONT KNOW the mechanism for why the global CO2 has been flat over the last 20 years when our production has been known to go up.
"The flat growth rate of CO2 forcing, despite increased emissions, is at least in part a reflection of increased terrestrial sequestration of carbon in the 1990s (44). The slowing growth rate of emissions may itself allow a higher proportion of CO2 emissions to be sequestered. Thus the prognosis for future sequestration is uncertain,"
He is saying that there is an UNKNOWN sequestration mechanism that is currently NOT in the models.
The author is admitting right there that the MODELS cannot account for the flat CO2.
HippieSmell
And "it says that the PROCESSES producing non-CO2 GHG's are the primary drive."
Would you please explain to me how a PROCESS can affect global climate change if it is NOT via the gases produced/consumed/transformed?
I am sure I am overlooking something.
Stu
However the article does state is there is a HUGE UNCERTAINTY in how all of these different GWGs play together.
An example is WE DONT KNOW the mechanism for why the global CO2 has been flat over the last 20 years when our production has been known to go up.
"The flat growth rate of CO2 forcing, despite increased emissions, is at least in part a reflection of increased terrestrial sequestration of carbon in the 1990s (44). The slowing growth rate of emissions may itself allow a higher proportion of CO2 emissions to be sequestered. Thus the prognosis for future sequestration is uncertain,"
He is saying that there is an UNKNOWN sequestration mechanism that is currently NOT in the models.
The author is admitting right there that the MODELS cannot account for the flat CO2.
HippieSmell
And "it says that the PROCESSES producing non-CO2 GHG's are the primary drive."
Would you please explain to me how a PROCESS can affect global climate change if it is NOT via the gases produced/consumed/transformed?
I am sure I am overlooking something.
Stu
Dingo44
New member
Ok, I'm trying to keep up here, but it's hard to read this entire article while customers keep coming into my store. (Damn people trying to buy stuff from me, the nerve) But I did find a quote that might be relevant, again, I need to go through this article a few more times without distractions to fully grasp it.
"Carbon Dioxide.CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. "
Which means it is not the dominant climate forcing right now, nor in the past. The article also says that CO2 does not dwarf other forcings. The point I see to all this is that there are so many other factors at play here besides CO2.
"Carbon Dioxide.CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. "
Which means it is not the dominant climate forcing right now, nor in the past. The article also says that CO2 does not dwarf other forcings. The point I see to all this is that there are so many other factors at play here besides CO2.
ScooterTDI
New member
ScooterTDI
New member
Agreed. That is why I liked the article. It gives a different perspective on the problem and the author isn't afraid to admit what is unknown and does a fairly good job about communicating the uncertainties.
Scott
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Those are sources of methane, and leaky gas pipelines are for fossil fuels that we burn
. The point is that fossil fuel use is the largest contributor to forcing, we've simply been given a slight reprieve through aerosols.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15425737#post15425737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Those are sources of methane, and leaky gas pipelines are for fossil fuels that we burn
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Yes, you are correct, but the recent warming is mostly anthropogenic.
Last edited:
ScooterTDI
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15425737#post15425737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Those are sources of methane, and leaky gas pipelines are for fossil fuels that we burn
Actually, the claim being made in the article is that the vast majority of methane being released is the result of microbial action.
Scott
stugray
Premium Member
I am SURE that this is in the current "Models"...;-)
"A detailed analysis of soil samples taken from a forest ecosystem with artificially elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) reveals distinct changes in the mix of microorganisms living in the soil below trembling aspen. These changes could increase the availability of essential soil nutrients, thereby supporting increased plant growth and the plants' ability to 'lock up,' or sequester, excess carbon from the atmosphere."
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08010125
So here is just ONE mechanism for increased CO2 consumption/sequestration that we did not predict with our models.
How many more will we discover as the global CO2 availability is increased?
As the Oceans absorb more CO2, we "predict" a catastrophic decrease in global Ph to the point that corals cannot survive.
Do you think corals could have survived 100s of millions of years if there was not "some mechanism" that will kick in and sequester the excess CO2?
Let me ask a question:
When you burn off Coal isnt CO2 a byproduct?
Where did the Coal come from in the first place? ( The atmosphere millions of years ago? )
We still cannot explain with certainty where all the oil & coal in the earth came from.
How can we say that elevated CO2 is catastrophic to the ecosystem?
I think the PROOF that the earth can absorb the excess CO2 is in the earth itself...
Stu
"A detailed analysis of soil samples taken from a forest ecosystem with artificially elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) reveals distinct changes in the mix of microorganisms living in the soil below trembling aspen. These changes could increase the availability of essential soil nutrients, thereby supporting increased plant growth and the plants' ability to 'lock up,' or sequester, excess carbon from the atmosphere."
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08010125
So here is just ONE mechanism for increased CO2 consumption/sequestration that we did not predict with our models.
How many more will we discover as the global CO2 availability is increased?
As the Oceans absorb more CO2, we "predict" a catastrophic decrease in global Ph to the point that corals cannot survive.
Do you think corals could have survived 100s of millions of years if there was not "some mechanism" that will kick in and sequester the excess CO2?
Let me ask a question:
When you burn off Coal isnt CO2 a byproduct?
Where did the Coal come from in the first place? ( The atmosphere millions of years ago? )
We still cannot explain with certainty where all the oil & coal in the earth came from.
How can we say that elevated CO2 is catastrophic to the ecosystem?
I think the PROOF that the earth can absorb the excess CO2 is in the earth itself...
Stu
stugray
Premium Member
Dingo44,
LOL "I'll tell you one thing CO2 is doing, screwing up the PH in my tank...."
AGREED! Since I run a CR, I dose Kalk to compensate and raise my Ph.
When I screwed up & left my Kalk drip too high, it killed my Cleaner shrimp & my Copper Band in one night.
So trying to OVER-compensate for too much CO2 is even more detrimental than doing nothing ( in THIS case )..
Agreed that too High Ph is better than too low, but huge swings are dangerous.
Stu
LOL "I'll tell you one thing CO2 is doing, screwing up the PH in my tank...."
AGREED! Since I run a CR, I dose Kalk to compensate and raise my Ph.
When I screwed up & left my Kalk drip too high, it killed my Cleaner shrimp & my Copper Band in one night.
So trying to OVER-compensate for too much CO2 is even more detrimental than doing nothing ( in THIS case )..
Agreed that too High Ph is better than too low, but huge swings are dangerous.
Stu
Dingo44
New member
Yeah, as soon as I get an ATO I will be dosing kalk. For now I'm battling my own anthropogenic GHG's in my apartment with only AC and windows.
That's an interesting article and a good question, how did the coral reefs survive for millions of years through all sorts of CO2 changes? I've seen a few fancy diagrams describing how the rise in CO2 will kill coral, and I always thought to myself, "How the hell did reefs even evolve if they can die that easily from CO2 increases?"
That's an interesting article and a good question, how did the coral reefs survive for millions of years through all sorts of CO2 changes? I've seen a few fancy diagrams describing how the rise in CO2 will kill coral, and I always thought to myself, "How the hell did reefs even evolve if they can die that easily from CO2 increases?"
- Status
Similar threads
