Ocean News

Man's HUGE amount of CO2?
First, in all the AGW literature I've read, outgassing of the oceans is NEVER mentioned as part of annual CO2.
We know as a scientific FACT, that warming increases CO2.
In other words, CO2 follows warming.
Since warming HAS occurred, obviously, the oceans outgassed more than usual CO2.

Likewise they NEVER mention the increased CO2 of decaying biomass, conveniently neglecting the scientific FACT, that warmth encourages growth of bacteria.

These two processes produce MOST of the CO2 each year, so by inference also produce most of the INCREASE in CO2 each year.

Totally ignored by the ignoramuses that want you to believe ALL the increase is man's contribution.

In addition, animals produce CO2. They want to blame THAT on man, as if all the animals were domestic animals.

World cattle populations 2013
Population

For 2013, the FAO estimated global cattle numbers at 1.47 billion.[181] Regionally, the FAO estimate for 2013 includes: Asia 495 million; South America 348 million; Africa 305 million; Europe 122 million; North America 102 million; Central America 46 million; Oceania 42 million; and Caribbean 9 million.

North America includes Canada and the USA.

http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/Pages/Populations.aspx 1997

"there are over 20 million deer in the United States and numbers are rising"

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0203.html 2002

"WANTED: MORE HUNTERS

The U.S. whitetail population is out of control. Not only are deer starving by the thousands, they're laying waste to entire ecosystems. There is only one solution. "

The US white tail deer population today is estimated at over 30 million, and does not include mule deer, American antelope, elk, caribou and moose, or the Canadian populations.

Almost 100% of insects are wild animals. same for snakes and other reptiles. Same for rodents, including squirrels, rabbits, mice, rats, prarie dogs, gophers, ect.
The wild bird population certainly out numbers commercial chicken and turkeys.

Animal CO2 is NOT mostly man caused.

Then wild fires. because of ignorant but well intentioned moratorium on controlled burning in USA southwest, wilD fires in recent years have been MUCH more extensive, and blamed on AGW rather than misguided interference with management.

AND VOLCANOS.

So, man ISN'T responsible for much of the annual increase in CO2.

2 parts per million annual from ALL sources!

https://www.co2.earth/annual-co2


Latest Daily CO2

February 13, 2016: 402.88 ppm

February 13, 2015: 400.12 ppm


January CO2

January 2016: 402.52 ppm

January 2015: 399.96 ppm


Annual CO2
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations
Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) & Global

Year
2015
NOAA-ESRL MLO 400.83 ppm
SCRIPPS UCSD MLO (*) 400.88 ppm
NOAA-ESRL Global (pending)

2014
NOAA-ESRL MLO 398.61 ppm
SCRIPPS UCSD MLO (*) 398.61 ppm
NOAA-ESRL Global 397.16 ppm

2013
NOAA-ESRL MLO 396.48 ppm
SCRIPPS UCSD MLO 396.58 ppm
NOAA-ESRLGlobal 395.25 ppm

2012
NOAA-ESRL 393.82 ppm
SCRIPPS UCSD 393.88 ppm
NOAA-ESRLGlobal 392.48 ppm
January 5, 2016

January 10, 2016

latest update November 5, 2015





SO WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE FOR THE EXAGGERATION, CALLING HUGE MAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO CO2?
AND TEMPERATURE IS NOT FOLLOWING CO2.

 

All the above sources of CO2 are recognized and factored into the total carbon cycle. Here are a few references from pro-AGW sources, just to put your fevered mind at rest that, YES, pro-AGW sources do account for ocean outgassing. And YES, pro-AGW sources do account for decaying biomass. And YES, pro-AGW sources do account for volcanoes, etc.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

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

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

I suppose the word HUGE is imprecise, and you could quarrel whether man's contribution is HUGE or not. The 29 gigatons/year of CO2 that humans are responsible for seems huge to me, but maybe compared to the natural volume of 750 gigatons per year of CO2, that doesn't seem so much.

What's relevant is not the actual volume of CO2 being emitted by man, or even the relative volume of CO2, but whether all of man's excess is being absorbed by the sea and earth, or whether any/some/all is accumulating in the atmosphere. As it turns out, roughly half of human-produced CO2 is NOT being absorbed by the earth or sea, but is accumulating in the atmosphere. That is why, as you pointed out in your post, CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising year after year, now over 400ppm, up from about 275ppm at the start of the industrial revolution.

 

I mention this about animals because of the destruction of forest and slaughter and barbarian inhuman acts upon defenseless animals that is one of the main causes of earths environmental destruction "Global warming"

Quote
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11589707

Futurologist Ian Pearson recently predicted that by 2050 it will be possible to implant devices into our pets and other animals to give them the ability to speak to us.

This raises the interesting question of whether such a device would provide animals raised and slaughtered for food with a voice, and whether this voice would make us think twice about eating them.
What this technology would probably do is provide some semantic overlay to animals' current communicative repertoire (for example: "bark, bark!" rendered as: "intruder, intruder!"). It is possible that this ability alone might be compelling for some people to stop eating meat, that we can't help but "humanise" talking cows and pigs or see them as more like ourselves.

There is some empirical evidence to support this idea. A group of researchers led by Brock Bastian asked people to write a short essay outlining the many ways in which animals are quite similar to humans. Other participants wrote about the ways in which humans are quite similar to animals. Participants who humanised animals had more positive views of them than those who animalised humans.

So if this technology had the ability to make us think of animals more like humans, then it could promote better treatment of animals.

Meat is murder

But let's imagine for a moment that the technology could do something more - it could reveal more of the animal's mind to us. One way this could benefit animals is it would show us that animals think about their future. This might stop us from eating animals because it would force us to see animals as beings who value their own lives.

The whole notion of "humane" killing is based on the idea that as long as you take efforts to minimise an animal's suffering, it is okay to take its life. Since animals do not consider their lives in the future - they are stuck in the "here and now" - they do not value their future happiness.

If technology could allow animals to show us that animals do have future aspirations (imagine hearing your dog say: "I want to play ball"), and that they value their lives ("Don't kill me!"), it is possible that this technology could stir in us deeper compassion for animals killed for meat.
So it is possible that providing animals with the means to speak to us would not change our moral attitude at all - at least not for animals that we already eat.

We have to remember what should already be obvious: animals do talk to us. Certainly they talk to us in ways that matter for our decisions about how to treat them. There is not much difference in a crying frightened child and a crying frightened piglet. Dairy cows that have their calves stolen from them soon after birth are believed by some to bemoan the loss weeks afterwards with heart wrenching cries. The problem is that we often do not take the time to really listen.

 

I bet it feels good to get that off your chest. Hope you sleep better tonight.

 

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of why it has been concluded that it is anthropogenic CO2 that is causing the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than natural sources. Following are ten points of why we know it is anthropogenic CO2, not natural CO2. I'm just giving the one-sentence argument. There is a full paragraph of further explanation for each point, plus there are many links in the original article as footnotes.

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

 

It's not always recognized how crucial a role the US Supreme Court sometimes plays in Climate Change policy. From an article describing how this term's decisions may be affected by Justice Scalia's recent unexpected death:

Scalia’s Absence Is Likely to Alter Court’s Major Decisions This Term | New York Times

 

The numbers supporting AGW were faked, rendering the scam a fake. How else would you describe it, a fraud, a travesty, pulling the wool, a swindle or selling a pig in a poke?

 

“Almost all people are hypnotics. The proper authority saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and the people believed properly.”
Charles Fort

 

97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing human-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

“Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are on the order of a hundred times greater than the emissions from all the volcanoes on the earth. Period.”

That’s Terrence Gerlach, retired U.S. Geological Survey volcanologist. Gerlach says that at the start of the Industrial Revolution, human activities and volcanoes were roughly equal sources of carbon dioxide.

But humans today burn enormous quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. As a result, our emissions of CO2 are now much larger than the emissions from volcanoes. And in turn, global levels of atmospheric CO2 are now higher than they have been in more than eight hundred thousand years.

 

"
There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:1.The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing."



You use the word EVIDENCE very loosely!

I'll take these "suppositions" apart one by one in next few posts, but I'll enlist some aid in a general refutation, now.

"CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Even the clearest and most perfect circumstantial evidence is likely to be at fault, after all, and therefore ought to be received with great caution. Take the case of any pencil, sharpened by any woman; if you have witnesses, you will find she did it with a knife; but if you take simply the aspect of the pencil, you will say she did it with her teeth.
- Pudd'nhead Wilson

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
- Life on the Mississippi "
http://www.twainquotes.com/Circumstantial.html

Thankyou Mr Samuel Clemens. (Mark Twain)

 

I'm sure CO2 emissions seem HUGE to you, as I imagine the quantity of water cascading daily over Niagara falls seems HUGE to you.
When the water arrives at the ocean , it's PUNY in comparison, and the CO2 emissions are PUNY compared to our ocean of air.

All is relative, and if you fail to comprehend perspective of scale, you make a HUGE error!

 

"1.The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;

Seems contradictory to me!


One of the BIG arguments of AGWers is "looks like".
Publishing graphs that "look like" similar rise and fall in CO2 and warming, but then neglect to say the warming PRECEDED the rise in CO2.

"Looks like" the industrial age coincides with recent warming on a chart?
Except from 50s to 70s, it "looks like" its cooling, and since 1998, it "looks like" warming has generally plateaued! Even while CO2 climbed unabated!

You do not have the latitude to use "looks like" is evidence when convenient to your argument, and dismiss 'looks like" when it refutes your case!

 

"8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing."

Statement 10 doesn't make any sense, but it claims "too small by a factor of 10" , or only 10% of total.

Statement 9 "biomass too small by a factor of 10" another 10% of total.

Statement 8 "volcanoes are one-hundredth" or 1%.

In these 3 statements AGWers admit 21% of the annual CO2 increase is NOT man made.
We'll whittle it down some more, I'll assure you! ;D

 

"6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

"The observed decline in O2 is straightforward. The diagonal arrow from the start point marked "fossil fuel burning" represents the expected change in CO2 and O2 concentrations from known fossil fuel consumption. The arrow marked "ocean uptake" represents the uptake of CO2 by the ocean, which does not affect the O2 level. The arrow marked "land uptake" is the uptake of CO2 and release of O2 by photosynthesis, which also decreases the CO2 concentration and increases the O2 concentration. Finally, the small arrow marked "outgassing" represents outgassing of O2 from the ocean, which does not affect CO2 concentration. That outgassing is partly the result of a warming ocean, and partly a result of the very slight decrease in the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere. These factors are reasonably, but not exactly known. It is important to note that because the fall in O2 concentration is significantly less than that predicted from known combustion of fossil fuels, the uptake of CO2 by photosynthesis must exceed the combustion or decay of modern organic material from either anthropogenic (Land Use Changes) or natural sources."


Making assertions 'it's anthropogenic', then in the argument "significantly less than predicted' and "very slight decrease in O2" and "not exactly known" then re-asserting 'it's anthropogenic" is intellectually dishonest!

The statement says "not volcanic' inferring it must be anthropogenic.

Toss THAT statement 6!

 

That leaves statements 4 and 5 to deal with.

"4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;"

And I will, as soon as I've researched it. Complicated subject.