Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - first signs of increase

[Michaelangelica]

Science Show - 10*March*2007* - Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - first signs of increase

[jackson33]

i am sure you have visited CO2 on the web. most feel the CO2 levels have been about where they are, at least back 400 years. man is given credit for 5% of the current levels. according to wik. enc. which claims about .045 of our atmosphere is now CO2, this means mans efforts are the obviously earth shattering, world ending total of .00225% of CO2 in the air on any given day.
even if it has doubled or increased 100% since 1900, all that was emitted until 2005 is long gone, for a variety of reason. people, animals and fish species are all thought to be at record levels, man up from 2 to about 6 billion. this tell me mankind, all their efforts (agriculture-industry) have made at worst a slight difference. this also tells me nature has already adapted to mans existence. plant life is thriving, contrary to popular belief. if nothing else imagine the plants required just to feed this population, the oxygen produced in the process of equal importance.

i did not research, the volcano activity in Hawaii before or during the period by the paper, but today i am sure this area would be significantly higher in CO2 content, than many metropolitan areas. the area itself is in formation...

[Zythryn]

Welcome back Jackson, was wondering if you were coming back or not

Originally Posted by jackson33

... most feel the CO2 levels have been about where they are, at least back 400 years.

You still seem to lack references or facts. Is this something else you heard from Rush on the radio? Who is 'most'. Most people? Most Scientists? Most Climatologists?

Even the sceptics tend to agree that the CO2 level is going up in our atmosphere.

Originally Posted by jackson33

man is given credit for 5% of the current levels. according to wik. enc. which claims about .045 of our atmosphere is now CO2, this means mans efforts are the obviously earth shattering, world ending total of .00225% of CO2 in the air on any given day.

Fun playing with percentages to make them seem insignificant, isn't it?
What percentage of your body weight, taken in the form of cyanide, is insignificant? While the percentages look small, if that small amount can hurt you does it really matter?

Originally Posted by jackson33

even if it has doubled or increased 100% since 1900, all that was emitted until 2005 is long gone...

This is too rich. May I ask what source this came from? Long gone?? CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many decades, many estimates of the average time CO2 remains in the air is over a century. So the excessive levels of CO2 we have added in the 20th century are not 'long gone'. To claim it is is irresponsible and untruthful.

Originally Posted by jackson33

... for a variety of reason. people, animals and fish species are all thought to be at record levels, man up from 2 to about 6 billion.

(Bold added by me for empasis). This is just silly. Of course not ALL animals and fish species are at record population levels. We have documented many species going extint. Many have nothing to do with GW, but many have been documented to have gone extinct or their numbers dwindling because of the change in their enviornment. Amphibians are taking the brunt right now, but they are certainly not the only ones.

Originally Posted by jackson33

this tell me mankind, all their efforts (agriculture-industry) have made at worst a slight difference. this also tells me nature has already adapted to mans existence.

Since your premise is incorrect (to put it mildly) you may want to reconsider the conclusion. Using the same logic, with the premise of 'mankinds population has blossomed, yet many animal species have gone extinct, this tells me mankinds benificial expansion has been to the detriment to many other parts of nature.

Originally Posted by jackson33

i did not research, the volcano activity in Hawaii before or during the period by the paper, but today i am sure this area would be significantly higher in CO2 content, than many metropolitan areas. the area itself is in formation...

Are you going back to the statement you made in the global warming thread about volcanoes being responsible for many times more CO2 than mankind has? http://hypography.com/forums/environ...tml#post157019

Would you still rather put your faith in uninformed talk show hosts, or are you now willing to at least consider scientific journals and research?

[jackson33]

Z; occasionally visit, to watch this bunch load up on new arrivals to the site, whom would seem to have a system to destroy any contrary view posed.
on GW, i could not resist a post...knowing i will get the same old prove it, by source and knowing the attacker already has seen anything i could offer.

pick any chart, some already in various threads on this site or google. CO2, for all practical purposed (major changes) has not been in some time. on any given day some natural action by nature can raise levels of CO2 in the atmosphere several percentage points. 100% increase would mean nothing unless it was added to daily for a period of time..

it is so insignificant it surprises me, to have to keep saying it. any increase can be attributed to many things including those already known to be from nature. were not talking toxic to life in these quantities, which many elements would be, even many germs & virus.

my 2005, may be a little close; i would be safe in saying if all CO2 could be stopped in a flash, plant life would start dying in days. many things however breakdown CO2, other than photosynthesis.

in referencing animals, fish or plants, the words and thoughts were directed to the totals or mass of the item. not some particular leopard coming on line or a species said to be extinct.

the world for the past 100 years has tripled or more on many levels. industry probably up 500-1000%, agriculture and mining the same, people three times and much more, yet we have only .045 CO2, in the atmosphere. either we are helping nature or nature has compensated for our being. again and the lost point, this .045 feeds all the plant life we need for the food we eat and the future air we will breath.

on volcano contribution by activity, the thread referance was done in Hawaii
and as said these islands are in formation from volcano activity. if i were wanting to measure CO2, on the earth for say 10k years i would go the one of the poles. oh!! thats where most does come from, not the middle of some forming island.

Limbaugh, as said before references all he says. since i am well aware of the conflicting ideas or those saying were done, cooked or whatever, i generally just agree with his somewhat simplistic and logical view.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by jackson33

...on any given day some natural action by nature can raise levels of CO2 in the atmosphere several percentage points.

I don't mind differing opinions. I learn from people that share differing opinions. However, statements like to one above just shoots any credibility your position has.

In response to your above statement, name a single natural action by nature that has occurred in mankinds written history that has raised levels of CO2 in the atmosphere several percentage points (by several, I take it you mean 3 or more?).

You prefer entertainers opinions over scientific inquiry which I just don't understand.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by jackson33

pick any chart,

Ok, how about this one:Global Monitoring Division
Seems a very steady and consistant trend. Over the last 50 years, every year the concentration of CO2 has gone up.

Originally Posted by jackson33

i would be safe in saying if all CO2 could be stopped in a flash,
plant life would start dying in days. many things however breakdown CO2, other than photosynthesis.

But note, no one is talking about 'all CO2 being stopped'. People are talking about the CO2 mankind adds to the atmosphere via energy use. If ALL CO2 production were stopped, that would mean all animal life died, and didn't decompose. It is unrealistic in the extreme and dishonest to use that argument to counter concern over mankind's artificial CO2 addition to the atmosphere.

And yes, many other things do break down CO2. And all of those things combined, remove CO2 from the atmospher over many decades (over a century in some estimates).

Originally Posted by jackson33

in referencing animals, fish or plants, the words and thoughts were directed to the totals or mass of the item. not some particular leopard coming on line or a species said to be extinct.

Ah, well that is quite different. As I don't know the mass of all life currently on earth, I can't argue against that. However, I would love to enlighten myself. Do you have any sort of reference (dare I ask).

Originally Posted by jackson33

the world for the past 100 years has tripled or more on many levels. industry probably up 500-1000%, agriculture and mining the same, people three times and much more, yet we have only .045 CO2, in the atmosphere. either we are helping nature or nature has compensated for our being. again and the lost point, this .045 feeds all the plant life we need for the food we eat and the future air we will breath.

Yes it does. However, the ecosphere does not use all the carbon pumped into the system each year. When that happens, the unused amount stays in the atmosphere and leads to an increase the following year. This is exactly what is causing the problem. The small percentage of CO2 serves a very important role. Considering the role it serves, it is a very important small percentage. So if that small percentage continues to grow, why do you find it so hard to believe that there could be consequences?

Originally Posted by jackson33

on volcano contribution by activity, the thread referance was done in Hawaii
and as said these islands are in formation from volcano activity. if i were wanting to measure CO2, on the earth for say 10k years i would go the one of the poles. oh!! thats where most does come from, not the middle of some forming island.

Hawaii is not where we are measuring CO2 levels from 10k years ago. We are measuring the current atmospheric content. The measurements are taken from 3400 meters up in the air so the volcanic activity should have little effect. Maybe a general increase, but no spikes unless there is a major eruption (even then, I just simply don't know if it would or not, I just don't want to discount it without having all the facts).
Lets assume there is an increase of 5ppm in the atmosphere 3400 meters up (Global Monitoring Division). Why is it that the measurements for the last 50 years have all gone up? If the CO2 level were easily effected by random volcanic activity, shouldn't we see some years where there is a huge spike and then a decrease the next??

If the effect is steady, then the trend still holds.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Limbaugh, as said before references all he says. since i am well aware of the conflicting ideas or those saying were done, cooked or whatever, i generally just agree with his somewhat simplistic and logical view.

Are you saying Limbaugh is not biased?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Ok, how about this one:Global Monitoring Division
Seems a very steady and consistant trend. Over the last 50 years, every year the concentration of CO2 has gone up.

Nice charts Zyth. My problem with them is that they are scaled to make them appear far more extreme than they are. Make it go from the bottom left to the top right and it seems like it is shooting up out of control. The reality is that it went from 375 to 384 in the first chart during a four year period, or about 0.67% each year; lower than all but three of the historic rates listed for 1959 to 1978.

The chart visually makes Co2 appear to have tripled in 4 years (it is too slanted )

Bill

[Zythryn]

How so, is it mislabeled? Are the axis mislabeled?
Again, I agree that the percentage change is small. However, it seems to me that a small percentage is all that is necessary. It also seems that the trend of CO2 is pretty obvious.

The argument that CO2 levels are not increasing is a foolish argument. The argument that the size of the trend will have no affect is a poor argument, but a much better one that there is no trend at all

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I don't mind differing opinions. I learn from people that share differing opinions. However, statements like to one above just shoots any credibility your position has.

In response to your above statement, name a single natural action by nature that has occurred in mankind's written history that has raised levels of CO2 in the atmosphere several percentage points (by several, I take it you mean 3 or more?).

You prefer entertainers opinions over scientific inquiry which I just don't understand.

since, i do not consider Al Gore an entertainer or a scientist, i would rather not discuss what any one may say. if you have a problem where Rush Limbaugh gets his material, you will have to talk to him. at least he is an entertainer and makes no pretense to his sided viewpoints...

when your indicating .045 total of a substance, then 10% much less a couple % points is trivial. a couple in this case raises this figure to .0459.... i might add the actual said amount from different opinions range in the 100's of percentiles. i have seen 1% which is thousands off the EW declaration.

there are 20 plus active volcanoes on this planet. the newest and most active are both in the Hawaii Islands. Kilauca and Loihi Seamount. as i said to the thread author and you; this in not a good place to figure the CO2contributions of mankind to the atmosphere. to the ignorant it may give support to a theory. you say we do not do exactly what you offer as an accurate chart...amazing. true for long periods we use a variety of ways to determine various levels of elements and adjust to what should have been.
have written much on this already.

of course, total CO2 emissions are not possible. the point however is Plant life has little excess to live with and we require plant life.

total amounts of each form of life is probably known. i have no desire to argue which is larger in weight, volume or mass. i do know that sea life lives in 72% of the world areas and plant life covers about 60% of the remaining 28%. also someone figured out by weight, ants alone are more than mankind.

one last point; the breakdown of CO2 and in fact another problem Methane are apparently disputable. some say 6 months and others 20 years. (i have not seen centuries).