Greenland's Ice Melting

Good.... enough with the false advertising.

 

Nope! That is neither a "hypothesis" nor a "dogma". That, "in the real world", is the very strong scientific consensus of virtually all of the experts in the fields of climate science, based on many decades of very intensive research and the laws of physics.

More total bullcrap from the denier cult propaganda pushers.

Naturally emitted CO2 was in a natural balance with naturally absorbed CO2, with the same amount being emitted every year as was being absorbed, leaving levels unchanged ....until mankind upset the balance by pumping over 2000 billion tons of fossil fuel sourced CO2 into the atmosphere since 1750, which has raised CO2 levels by over 43%, from about 270ppm in pre-industrial times to ver 400ppm today (and still rising fast).

In reality, "the additional load by humans is incredibly" LARGE, and getting larger all the time.

 

Even the warmers agree that man only adds 3 or 4% to C02 leve!s. The only way they can come up with the exaggerated levels they do is to extrapolate and claim that earth somehow can't deal with mans C02 and it builds up over time. That is hypothesis not fact and also leaves out the of the equation the C02 that man has taken out of the environment. For instance here in America especially in the dryer western regions fires used to burn all summer long after lightning strikes and early settlers reported not being able to see the sun for months at a time from the smoke. Now we do a pretty good job of putting out most of these fires which dramaticly reduces CO2 output but is not so good for our forest, deserts and plaines. That is another environmental issue though and is one I'm sure you are totally ignorant of because its not part of your religion of AGW.

Read the following and then imagine how much C02 was put into the atmosphere when fires burned from spring until the snow flew.


"Overall, the study estimated that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about 4 to 6 percent of the amount of the greenhouse gas that the nation releases through fossil fuel burning.
These fires can contribute a larger proportion of the carbon dioxide released in several western and southeastern states, including Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington, Arkansas, Mississippi and Arizona.
Supporting research
Another new study, detailed in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Nature, found that over the past 60 years, forest fires have had the greatest direct impact on carbon emissions from the boreal forests located in the higher latitudes of Canada, Alaska and Siberia, both by the amount of carbon released as the forests burn and the emission of carbon dioxide from the soil as the sun reaches through the empty branches and promotes faster decomposition.
Fires that become large enough can release huge pulses of the gas into the atmosphere very rapidly.
"A striking implication of very large wildfires is that a severe fire season lasting only one or two months can release as much carbon as the annual emissions from the entire transportation or energy sector"

 

It's all a POLITICAL MOVEMENT to gain control by generating fear. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

It started as pure political but has morphed into an anti man religion in many cases. Take for instance the dogma that another poster put on here that earth can't deal with any man made C02, it is somehow different and indigestible. Yes man is evil .

 

Hurry, you must flee the coast or you are doomed.

Only Al Gore can save us.

 

LOLOLOL.....totally deranged nonsense!

It is an absolute fact that mankind's activities have raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 43% at this point and levels are still rising. Those are actual measurements, not guesses.

CO2 DOES, IN FACT, "build up over time". The "earth", or more properly, the natural processes that remove carbon dioxide from the air, in fact "can't deal with man's CO2" - the 2000 billion tones of fossil fuel sourced CO2 that mankind has spewed into the air since 1750.

Your anti-science disconnection from the world everyone else lives in has reached new heights of insanity and flat-out reality denial. Very pathetic but also very hilarious.

 

LOL Frances. only in your eyes. The real world sees it much differently than you. And facts you think you have are only your facts for your scrap book I supposed, because to date, you still haven't presented real ones yet.

But you stay with your fiction, although, it's a boring read.

 

Oh really, absaloute fact? No it is pure conjecture and hypothesis that relys heavily on the false premise that correlation is causation. The only fact is that mans CO2 contribution is a drop in the bucket.

 

BTW, why don't you post up a pretty graph showing the actual measured 43% human CO2. Let the class see your scrap book.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.......THAT IS SOOOO CRAZY!

Actually, you poor confused denier cult dupe, the facts about CO2 are the FACTS....as seen in the eyes of the entire world scientific community.

Nope! Your delusions are not in the "real world", they exist only in your denier cult Bizarro-World.

In the real "real world", the scientific facts are very different from your delusional denier cult fantasy-land anti-"facts".

Here's a good summary of the facts, with hyperlinked references and footnotes to back up what is being said.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
Wikipedia
(excerpts)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere.[1][2] Despite its relatively small concentration, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and plays a vital role in regulating Earth's surface temperature through radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect.[3]

The current episode of global warming is attributed primarily to increasing industrial CO2 emissions into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 400 ppm as of 2015.[4] The present concentration is almost certainly the highest in the past 800,000 years[5] and very likely the highest in the past 20 million years.[6] The increase has been caused by anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[7] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013.[8] It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.[9][10] An estimated 30–40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[11][12] which contributes to ocean acidification.

While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity.[71] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics on fossil fuel consumption, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[71] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling them to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[72]

This addition is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[81] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels.[8][17]

 

Another livefree multi colored meltdown.

 

Another one of Sawyer's deranged denials of scientific evidence, reality and facts.

 

You mean the plants we remove by the millions every year? It's not just about putting CO2 into the air, it's about reducing the things that remove it. While we are adding CO2 we are removing forest at an alarming rate. Every time we churn soil to build a new building, or cut down trees not only are getting rid of something that stores CO2 but we're releasing the CO2 from that thing. Microbes in the ocean are one of the largest carbon storers and look what we're doing to our oceans. Not to mention ice is a carbon sink, and as discussed it's melting. We are hitting the planet from both sides. If you sit in your garage with the car on, the CO2 will kill you. The planet is a big garage that does have a limit. The amount of CO2 that we can be exposed to and survive has been studied, and proven to not be limitless.

Your suggestions are good ones, let's do it! I'm not saying this is only a CO2 issue. This is a plastic, deforestation, over fishing, methane, over population issue. If it were just one thing I would worry, but it's literally every single thing combined that worries me.

 

And your source was????

 

Once again America leads the way

"Thanks to decades of forest growth exceeding harvesting rates the US officially has more trees now compared to 100 years ago.

The United States has the fourth largest forest estate of any nation, with 8% of the world’s forests or about 300 million hectares of forest, exceeded only by the Russian Federation, Brazil and Canada. Thanks to sustainable harvesting practices, creation of National Parks and less land being turned to agriculture the rate of forest growth has steadily climbed in the US. In fact, many forestry companies now plant trees than they harvest.

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/united-states-trees/#.VqoilqeIbxA

- - - Updated - - -

Once again America leads the way

"Thanks to decades of forest growth exceeding harvesting rates the US officially has more trees now compared to 100 years ago.

The United States has the fourth largest forest estate of any nation, with 8% of the world’s forests or about 300 million hectares of forest, exceeded only by the Russian Federation, Brazil and Canada. Thanks to sustainable harvesting practices, creation of National Parks and less land being turned to agriculture the rate of forest growth has steadily climbed in the US. In fact, many forestry companies now plant trees than they harvest.

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/united-states-trees/#.VqoilqeIbxA

 

Multiple sources on this with a quick search but here's just one. It's a warmer site that goes on to try and debunk this fact by saying earth somehow can't absorb man made C02 but they don't disagree with the fact that our contribution is only a couple of percent.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating how the denier cultists lie.

You were asked for the source of the fraudulent nonsense you posted. You pointed to the Skeptical Science website. LOLOLOL. The actual "source" of your drivel is a demented denier cult blog called 'Jeff ID'. Skeptical Science was just quoting that crud in order to debunk it.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2emissions?
Skeptical Science
What the science says...
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Climate Myth...
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)
*****

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.


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

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. 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.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.


Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)

Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook

Update July 2015:

Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 

If I earn $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank balance doesn't change.

If I earn $1030 and spend $1000 a week, my bank balance goes up by $1560 over the year, year after year, even though it was "only" a 3% difference.

CO2 in the atmosphere works the same way.

And if you can't understand something as basic and fundamental as an equilibrium system, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

If only the earth's weather system was that simple. Your explanation might impress a 3rd grader and likely what they are taught in our public schools.

 

We all know the standard warmer cult hypothesis and your repeating it ad nauseum will not make it come true.

 

Your deluded denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming will not stop the temperatures from rising or the ice from melting.

Those things, and many more disruptions to our world brought on by warming, are happening right now....and all of the hot air you spew trying to deny observable reality just adds to the problem.

 

The funniest thing is how that 3rd-grade reasoning flies right over your head.

But then, that's quite expected, as everyone who understands reason and logic instantly recognizes the scam being pulled by the denier cultists. It's only the logically-impaired who get sucked into that cult.

 

The funny thing is how simple you think the earths weather systems are and how you think mans tiny contribution toCO2 levels somehow can not be dealt with and add up like penny's in a child's bank. How far does this go with you? What about all the CO2 exhaled by man since humanoids roamed the earth? Is that all still adding up too? What about all the warming and cooking fires before and even after the industrial revolution, is that adding up too? Why is mans C02 any different than the other 97% that is "natural"? Do you believe that natures CO2 never varies and is so consistent that our tiny contribution is the deciding factor?

 

As is always the case with me and others in the reason-based community, real world evidence backs up my position. We do measure these things, you know. Because of the changing isotope ratios, we know with absolute certainly that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has come from the burning of fossil fuels.

Sure is. All emitted CO2 adds up, being that there's no difference between natural and human emissions of CO2 (other than the isotope balance). That's just the most basic kind of common sense. It's also common-sense that the scale of those pre-industrial emissions was usually pretty small, not enough to affect the atmospheric level. Not for everything, as land-clearing activities or reforestation could emit or absorb significant amounts of CO2. For example, after new world diseases decimated the natives of the Americas, vast tracts of farmland went back to forest and jungle, dropping global CO2 levels by about 7 ppm.

I'm saying it's not, and you're saying it is. According to your theory, human-emitted CO2 is different from natural CO2 in that human CO2 just magically vanishes, no matter how much is pumped out.

It does vary naturally, but it varies slowly, over geological time frames. That's another reason why we know that humans are the cause of the current sudden spike.