Greenland's Ice Melting

Again you reveal your total ignorance....and foolishly imagine that you have said something.

BTW, 'breathing' & 'cooking fires' = NO PROBLEM!

Removing enormous quantities of fossil carbon from where it had been safely sequestered for tens of millions of years and burning off 2000 billion tons of fossil fuel sourced carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, most of it in the last half century or so.....raising CO2 levels by 43% (so far) over their normal, natural, pre-industrial levels = HUGE PROBLEM!!!

Also....

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 CO2 comes 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.
(source)

Or...

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

 

Well according to you we are surly doomed then. The 40% rise in CO2 levels you attribute to man is not going away because earth's natural processes can not deal with it. There is no possible way way can pull the plug on one hundred percent or even fifty percent of our CO2 contribution any time soon and even if we could the dye is cast and we can only await the inevitable dooms day scenarios the warmer cult predicts. See the corner you have painted yourself into here?

 

Your link uses a 150 year time frame to establish man as the cause of higher Co2 levels which in and of itself is absurd. Very little of the world was industrialized in any real sense of the word until very recently so it proves that co2 levels were going up when the vast majority of mankind was still largely agrarian. Hoisted on your own pitard

Take for instance China and southeast Asia who are only very recently not only pouring out CO2 but a huge percentage of it world wide. Add to this most of the world excluding Europe and America and the 150 year number proves carbon !evels were rising well before any real contribution by man.
"There is consensus about the fact that this change in growth pattern started in northwestern Europe, and gradually spread to large parts of the western and, after a lag, eastern and southern world.
Why this happened, and where it happened are topics of heated debate among historians. The recent “Chinese miracle” – fabulous growth since about 2000 – has had an important impact on this debate.
How could the Chinese economy, which is clearly capable of dramatic economic change (in view of what happened since 1979), manage to “miss” the industrial revolution of the 19th century?"
http://www.voxeu.org/article/why-china-missed-industrial-revolution

 

Ignorant denier cult nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual scientific research and findings. Just more meaningless drivel from a denier cult troll.

 

Painted into a corner again aren't you

 

Nope! Laughing my ass off at you and your silly delusional nonsense again, actually.

You bullcrap got debunked and you are still too befuddled to realize it.

 

Debunked? Well if you want to believe China and southeast Asia were industrialized 150 years ago feel free but I prefer reality

 

Your silly straw-man arguments only impress the other denier cult dupes.

 

While I agree those are achievements, we could still use improvement. Those examples are exactly why the climate conference in France was a good idea. We should be sharing these things with other countries, and they share their ideas. I just returned from Nepal and 1/4 of their country is now protected land. A movement is happening and I'd like the US to lead it.

 

Always room for improvement but the AGW bunch would have you believe we are about to go over a cliff and need massive things to happen fast or we die soon. This panic mentality will do more harm than good

 

Okay but the flip side is the drill baby drill people want to make it worse not better. Going backwards seems pointless.

 

I'm a drill baby drill guy and a room for improvement guy too. We need to do things as clean as possible and take care of our national security and economy.

 

Can you explain what you mean by this? What does drilling for oil have to do with climate and Greenland's ice? If you are saying that using oil products may be a pollutant, I have no issue with that, but if you say it affects climate, you have no proof available to make that kind of statement. Nor, after spending billions of dollars to find alternative fuels have we successfully found one that is reliable enough to replace oil. Unless again, you have some proof of such a thing. One merely has to look at the number of gas powered vehicles sold in 2015 over electric.

Dude, it isn't even close to happening. So, feel free to post up your alternatives and let's take a look at our future. Right now, that doesn't exist for the globe. And why oil is still very much important to keep humans alive. But, perhaps you don't care about the quality of human life. Not sure your position on that.

 

Because we need to be moving away from fossil fuels and really put some effort into renewables. More drilling is not putting effort and resources into renewables. We've given renewables a kindergarten effort at best, so ya gas cars sold more because there isn't an infrastructure to support electric yet. Oil production contributes to climate change in a lot of ways. Fuel is burned to operate rigs, petroleum is used to make plastic which is polluting every nook and cranny on this planet, fracking is causing larger and more frequent earthquakes, it wastes water we could use for drinking or crop production, gets spilled by accident into waterways and top soil and a slew of other things. I want to see a future that is moving away from that kind of fuel production. We are the most innovative species, can't we find better ways that don't trash our home?

 

dude, I asked you what alternatives? You didn't post up any. I get you want oil to go away because you hate electricity and riding 1000 miles in an airplane to do business and visit family and friends, but put up the alternative fuel? What is it? one can't simply say...nope don't want that anymore, all you people tough sht.... without a reasonable solution. What is your solution? What magic have you got that no one on the planet has found yet? Please, enlighten me.

 

People have found options, but little time or money is put into those options compared to oil, gas and coal. Wind, wave, solar energies, combined with things like biomass gasification. We could harvest more methane from the feces created at our giant factory farms. You want to talk about climate change, let's look at agriculture. Animal agriculture alone is 40% more responsible for climate change than all of transportation combined (Foer, 2010). An alternative would be every person in a first world country only eating meat once or twice a week, instead of it being the main course for nearly all meals. There are a lot of options already being done, but like I said at a kindergarten level, by too few people. We don't have to stop using oil completely, how about just less of it? Can we start weening ourselves off it gradually if we continue to drill all the time? Maybe oil still has a role in our portfolio of energy it's just accompanied (seriously) by other sources. Solar is starting to really take hold. Is it enough on its own? No, that's why we use several different things.

Foer, Jonathan. (2010). Eating Animals

 

No proof???

So tell me - where is all the CO2 coming from then?

 

Or we could eat 'roo. It is to Australia's shame that we do not eat Kangaroo as 'roos do not produce methane in the gut but they do produce nitrogen.

Mind you it is becoming more and more acceptable as a meat here in Aussie land

 

Not from man.

From a Wry Heat reprinted with permission of Jonathan DuHamel

A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”

This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

EPA_Table3pct

If one wanted to make fun of the alleged consensus of “climate scientists”, one could say that 97% of carbon dioxide molecules agree that global warming results from natural causes

 

put up your evidence of that. Put up a list that backs your statement. Wind is done and it uses more coal and Oil to build them. solar ain't happening either because the companies keep going out of business. But, you made a statement and did not post up evidence to support the post, so post the list where the money goes that you claim is unfair. 76 billion has been spent in alternatives in the last 20 years, so let's see what the number is for oil and gas subsidies.

- - - Updated - - -

where did it come from when in it was in the thousands of PPM and man wasn't here? Really, are you that naive?

 

Love it! Eat em' up!

 

But you're anti gun. Guess you could hunt them with bow and arrow though.

 

Total fraudulent bullcrap!

"A new post on The Hockey Schtick", a fraudulent rightwingnut, anti-science, denier cult blog/front for fossil fuel industry propaganda and lies written by non-scientist stooges, "reviews a new paper" that isn't any kind of actual 'scientific paper' but rather a bunch of crackpot lies and pseudo-science that couldn't possibly pass peer-review and get published in any scientific journals, so it appears only on a demented denier cult blog.

In the real world, mankind has burned off into the atmosphere over 500 billion metric tonnes of fossil fuel sourced carbon dioxide since 1750, with the large majority of that amount in the last 60 years. That, plus some other human activities like deforestation, has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by over 43% so far (and still rising fast), from about 270ppm before the industrial revolution to a current global high of over 400ppm. It took until the 1970s for CO2 levels to climb by 50ppm. The rest of the increase (from 320ppm to over 400ppm) has happened since then. Mankind's CO2 emissions currently total about 40 billion tonnes per year, and of this amount, about half stays in the atmosphere, while about a quarter is taken up by the oceans and roughly the same amount by land plants. Isotope analysis of the CO2 now in the air reveals the fossil fuel source for almost half of the CO2 that is currently in the air.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
RealClimate
Dr. Eric Steig
22 December 2004
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means "same type") but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere - as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase - around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges - whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry - show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere - which took many thousand years - was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

 

You keep posting the same BS from warmer sites over and over. Wasn't it Lenin that said something like " A lie told often enough becomes the truth"? He wanted complete control over society too.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.........you denier cultists are a hoot!

Your ignorant, brainwashed denial of science and reality is both hilarious and extremely sad.

In the real world, all you ever do is spew fraudulent denier cult myths, and I then debunk them with the actual scientific facts about the matter (what you delusionally and dementedly refer to as "the same BS from warmer sites"), from real, working, publishing, highly respected climate scientists, like the one who wrote the RealClimate article that I just posted - Dr. Eric Steig....

Dr. Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He was a senior editor of the journal Quaternary Research, and director of the Quaternary Research Center. He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles in international journals.

More information about his research and publication record can be found here.